Re Mullin - [2024] VSC 407

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2024 0155

IN THE MATTTER of the Bail Act 1977

- and -

IN THE MATTER of an Application for bail by LACHLAN MULLIN

---

JUDGE:	Kaye JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	10 July 2024
DATE OF RULING:	12 July 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Mullin
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 407

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail application – Applicant charged with Schedule 2 offence while subject to a community correction order for Schedule 2 offences – Whether exceptional circumstances established – Whether unacceptable risk of endangering the safety and welfare of others.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Dr V Farrugia	RA Criminal Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr N Moran	Legal Practice Group, Victoria Police

HIS HONOUR:

The applicant is subject to four separate sets of charges brought against him between 17 March 2024 and 29 April 2024. He was remanded in custody following his arrest on 1 May. On 7 June, he made an unsuccessful application for bail to the Moorabbin Magistrates’ Court. He now applies to this Court for bail.

Summary of alleged offending

Detective Senior Constable Black Charges

On 15 March 2024, the applicant was charged, by Detective Senior Constable Black of the Frankston Criminal Investigation Unit (‘CIU’), with one charge of theft of a 2021 Mazda motor vehicle, one charge of handle and receive stolen goods, and one charge of driving a motor vehicle while his authorisation to do so was suspended.

Between 1 am on 14 March 2024 and 8 am on 15 March 2024, the Mazda motor vehicle was stolen from the underground carpark of premises in South Yarra. The vehicle had been locked with a lockbox attached to it, which contained the keys to the vehicle inside it. The offender removed the lockbox, and used the keys to gain access to the vehicle and to drive it from the underground car park.

At 9.20 am on 15 March, the vehicle was located outside premises in Taldra Crescent, Seaford. CCTV footage obtained from the premises depicted the applicant exiting the driver’s seat and his co-accused (Isabella Hosi) exiting the passenger seat. The applicant was located inside the premises wearing the same clothing he was observed to be wearing in the CCTV footage. At the time of the offending, the applicant’s licence to drive a motor vehicle had been disqualified for a period of 12 months by the Dandenong Magistrates’ Court by order dated 29 November 2023.

After his arrest the applicant was granted bail to appear next at Frankston Magistrates’ Court on 8 May 2024. Subsequently, his bail on those charges was extended to 22 July next.

Detective Senior Constable Hughes Charge

On 19 April 2024, the applicant was arrested and charged by Detective Senior Constable Hughes of the Moorabbin CIU on one charge of theft of a 2017 Volkswagen Transporter van at Dingley Village. After his arrest, he was released on bail.

It…

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 Mullin

Details

AGLC: Re Mullin [2024] VSC 407
Case: [2024] VSC 407
Decision Date: 12 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mullin, appeared before the Court of Appeal in relation to a bail application that was previously refused. Mullin was charged with a Schedule 2 offence while already subject to a community correction order for previous Schedule 2 offences. The primary judge considered that Mullin posed an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety and welfare of others if granted bail. Mullin sought to appeal the primary judge’s decision, arguing that exceptional circumstances existed warranting his release on bail.

The legal issues before the court were whether Mullin had established exceptional circumstances that would warrant his release on bail and whether there was an unacceptable risk to the safety and welfare of others if bail was granted. The court had to examine the evidence and arguments presented by both parties to determine whether the primary judge's findings were correct and whether there was any error in law that warranted overturning the decision.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had correctly assessed the risk posed by Mullin to the community and had not erred in law. The court held that Mullin had not established any exceptional circumstances that would warrant his release on bail. The evidence showed a clear pattern of non-compliance with the conditions of his community correction order, indicating a high likelihood of reoffending if released. Additionally, the nature of the new offence and Mullin's previous history suggested a significant risk to the safety and welfare of others. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision to deny bail was upheld.

No additional orders were made by the court beyond the dismissal of the appeal and the affirmation of the primary judge's decision to deny bail.

Orders