Re Lokodu - [2020] VSC 759

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2020 0266

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by LOMARY LOKODU

---

JUDGE:	TINNEY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	9 November 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	9 November 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Lokodu
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 759

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Aggravated home invasion – Applicant failed to attend trial in answer to bail – Delay – Importance of delay tempered by applicant’s involvement in bringing it about – Strength of prosecution case – Relevance of acquittal of co-accused – Case reasonably strong – Sentence upon conviction likely to exceed any period on remand – Exceptional circumstances not established – Unacceptable risk in any event - Bail refused – Bail Act 1977 ss 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4A, 4AA, 4D, 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms C Dwyer	Leanne Warren & Associates
For the Respondent	Mr A Grant	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The applicant applies for bail in respect of charges he faces of aggravated home invasion, common assault, intentionally damaging property, and theft (the ‘informant Elliott matters’).

Briefly, the charges related to an incident on 1 September 2017, in which it is alleged that the applicant and two co-accused were amongst a large group of men who attended a residential address in Albion, armed with wooden sticks and metal poles, and assaulted one of its occupants and damaged the residence.

Aggravated home invasion is a Schedule 1 offence within the meaning of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) (‘the Act’).[1] It follows that bail must be refused unless the applicant can satisfy this Court that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail.[2]
[1]Bail Act 1977 (Vic) (‘the Act’) sch 1, item 4.
[2]Ibid ss 4AA(1) and 4A.

Procedural history

The applicant was arrested and charged on 1 September 2017. After being twice refused bail in September and December 2017, he was ultimately granted bail on 8 March 2018 after being committed to stand trial. It was a condition of bail that he reside with his parents in St Albans. Without notifying the informant, the applicant left this address and commenced to reside with his partner in Albion.

The matter was listed for trial on 25 February 2019 in the Melbourne County Court, ending up in the reserve list. The applicant failed to appear on that day but did appear on 26 February 2019, and was re-bailed on strict conditions including a surety of $1000, a residential condition in Albion, and daily reporting at Keilor Downs Police Station. On 27 February 2019, the trial was adjourned to a new trial date of 2 September 2019, and the applicant’s bail was extended to that date.

On 29 March 2019, the applicant was charged with assault of his partner, (the ‘informant Nicholson matters’) and criminal damage, and was released…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Re Lokodu

Details

AGLC: Re Lokodu [2020] VSC 759
Case: [2020] VSC 759
Decision Date: 9 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an application for bail by Lokodu, who was charged with aggravated home invasion. The applicant had failed to attend his trial following the grant of bail, leading to a delay in the proceedings. The court had to consider various legal issues, including whether the delay in attending trial was justified, the strength of the prosecution's case against the applicant, and whether the risk of flight or interference with witnesses warranted refusal of bail. Additionally, the court needed to weigh the fact that Lokodu's co-accused had been acquitted, which could impact the assessment of the risk posed by the applicant.

In assessing these issues, the court emphasised the importance of the delay but recognised that Lokodu had played a role in creating it. The court also considered the strength of the prosecution's case, finding it reasonably strong based on the evidence available. The potential sentence upon conviction was noted to likely exceed any period on remand, which further supported the refusal of bail. Despite the acquittal of Lokodu's co-accused, the court determined that the case against the applicant was sufficiently robust to justify concerns about the risk of flight or interference with witnesses.

The court concluded that exceptional circumstances had not been established to warrant bail, and there remained an unacceptable risk that Lokodu would not attend his trial or interfere with witnesses. As a result, the application for bail was refused, aligning with the principles set out in the Bail Act 1977. The court's decision underscored the need for the applicant to face the charges in court, given the seriousness of the offence and the potential consequences of a conviction.

Orders