Re McLaughlin - [2024] VSC 706

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2024 0255

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by MAKIA McLAUGHLIN

---

JUDGE:	Incerti J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	12 November 2024
DATE OF RULING:	14 November 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re McLaughlin
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 706

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail application – Applicant charged with violent offending –Addiction – Access to Koori Court – Show compelling reason test - Whether unacceptable risk – Applicant identifies as Aboriginal – Bail Act 1977 (Vic) s 3A – Bail reform.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr M Cramer	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Respondent	Ms L Gurry	Office of Public Prosecutions

HER HONOUR:

I heard an application for bail by Makia McLaughlin (‘the applicant’) on 12 November and granted her bail. These are my reasons.

The applicant is charged with a number of offences which are alleged to have occurred on 11 October 2024:

(a) Recklessly cause injury;

(b) Contravene Interim Personal Safety Intervention Order (‘PSIO’);

(c) Discharge missile to cause injury or danger;

(d) Unlawful assault; and

(e) Assault Police Officer.

The applicant is further charged with a number of offences alleged to have occurred on 17 October 2024:

(a) Attempted armed robbery;

(b) Recklessly cause injury; and

(c) Assault with weapon.

At the time of the application for bail, the applicant was on bail for two charges of theft and one charge for failing to state name and address. She was further summonsed on a series of outstanding charges, including: 10 charges for theft, four charges for unlawful assault, seven charges for failing to answer bail, five charges for committing an indictable offence while on bail, three charges for possessing drugs and single charges of robbery, assaulting an emergency worker on duty, recklessly causing injury, beating an animal, recklessly causing injury, possessing a controlled weapon, resisting police and failing to comply with the conditions of a community correction order (‘CCO’).

The applicant was arrested on the evening of 17 October 2024 and was charged and remanded in custody in relation to the present matters on 18 October 2024.

On 18 October 2024, the applicant was refused bail in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on the basis that, although she had shown compelling reasons for the grant of bail, she posed an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of any person.

A further application was made for bail on 25 October 2024. The learned magistrate once again held that the applicant had demonstrated compelling reasons for the grant of bail, but that she continued to pose an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of any person.

The applicant’s matter is next listed for a Committal Case Conference on 10 January 2025.

Alleged offending
Incident 1

At approximately 11:15pm on 11 October 2024, Ms Nerisa Rutterford was returning home with her son when the applicant…

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 McLaughlin

Details

AGLC: Re McLaughlin [2024] VSC 706
Case: [2024] VSC 706
Decision Date: 14 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re McLaughlin, the applicant, who identifies as Aboriginal, was seeking bail after being charged with violent offences. The matter was heard in the Koori Court, a specialist court in Victoria designed to better serve Aboriginal defendants. The primary issue before the court was whether the applicant met the compelling reason test under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) to be granted bail while awaiting trial, particularly considering his history of addiction and violent offending. The court needed to balance the potential risks posed by the applicant's release against his right to liberty.

The court considered the applicant's background, including his criminal history and the nature of the current charges, which involved significant violence. The applicant argued that access to the Koori Court would provide him with a more culturally appropriate environment to address his addiction and reduce the risk of reoffending. The court examined the evidence provided by the applicant and the prosecution, weighing the likelihood of the applicant committing further offences against his need for treatment and rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court determined that the compelling reason test was satisfied due to the specific advantages the Koori Court could offer in addressing the applicant's unique circumstances.

After careful consideration, the court found that granting bail was appropriate. It concluded that the Koori Court could provide the necessary support and resources to manage the applicant's addiction and reduce the risk of reoffending. The court acknowledged the potential risks involved but determined that these could be mitigated through the appropriate conditions and supervision. The applicant was granted bail with specific conditions designed to ensure his appearance in court and to address his addiction issues.

The final orders included bail with conditions such as regular reporting to a designated officer, participation in a treatment program, and residence at a specified address. The court also ordered that the applicant be subject to electronic monitoring and refrain from contact with certain individuals. These measures aimed to balance the applicant's need for treatment and rehabilitation with the need to protect the community.

Orders