Re Ninua

Case [2024] VSC 391 28 June 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2024 0140

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by Vakhtang NINUA

---

JUDGE:	Elliott J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28 June 2024
DATE OF RULING:	28 June 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Ninua
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 391

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Charges of armed robbery and other indictable offences involving the use or threatened use of an offensive weapon – Schedule 2 offences – Requirement to show a compelling reason – Nature and seriousness of alleged offending – Strength of prosecution case – Anticipated delay – Limited criminal history – Personal circumstances – Availability of stable accommodation – Availability of bail support service – Compelling reason established – Applicant not an unacceptable risk – Bail granted – Bail Act 1977 (Vic), ss 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4C, 4D, 4E, 5AAA.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the applicant	J P McQuillan	James Dowsley & Associates
For the respondent	C Foot	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

A. Introduction

On 3 May 2024, the applicant, Vakhtang Ninua (“Ninua”), was charged with the following offences alleged to have been committed on 2 May 2024:
(1)Kidnapping, contrary to common law.
(2)False imprisonment, contrary to common law.
(3)Extortion with a threat to kill, contrary to section 27 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
(4)Causing injury intentionally, contrary to section 18 of the Crimes Act.
(5)Causing injury recklessly, contrary to section 18 of the Crimes Act.
(6)Armed robbery, contrary to section 75A of the Crimes Act.
(7)Dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime, contrary to section 195 of the Crimes Act.
Ninua first applied for bail at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 4 May 2024. That application was refused on the basis that Ninua posed an unacceptable risk.
Ninua made a further application for bail at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 7 June 2024. On 11 June 2024, the application was refused, again on the basis that Ninua posed an unacceptable risk.
The matter is next listed at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 29 July 2024 for a committal case conference.
In support of Ninua’s application for bail before this court, he relied on a number of factors said in combination to establish the existence of a compelling reason justifying the grant of bail. These included triable issues with the prosecution case, the length of time likely to be spent on remand if bail were refused, his limited prior criminal history, his personal circumstances, including the dependence of his unwell mother on him for care, the availability of stable accommodation and the availability of a bail support service including electronic monitoring.
The application was opposed by the prosecution on the basis that a compelling reason had not been established, but that in any event, Ninua would present an unacceptable risk if he were to be…

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 Ninua

Details

AGLC: Re Ninua [2024] VSC 391
Case: [2024] VSC 391
Decision Date: 28 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Ninua involved an application for bail by the applicant against charges of armed robbery and other indictable offences where an offensive weapon was used or threatened. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was whether the applicant had demonstrated a compelling reason for being granted bail, given the serious nature of the charges and the fact that they were Schedule 2 offences under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic). The court needed to weigh the seriousness of the alleged offences against the applicant's personal circumstances, criminal history, and the likelihood of the applicant attending court if released on bail.

The court thoroughly examined the nature and seriousness of the alleged offences, considering the impact on the victims and the use or threat of an offensive weapon. It assessed the strength of the prosecution case based on the available evidence. The applicant's limited criminal history and personal circumstances, including the availability of stable accommodation and the support of a bail support service, were also taken into account. The court determined that a compelling reason had been established, and that the applicant did not pose an unacceptable risk to the community or to any identified person if granted bail.

Consequently, the court granted the applicant bail under the provisions of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic), including sections 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4C, 4D, 4E, and 5AAA. The court outlined specific conditions for the applicant's release on bail, ensuring that these were practical and enforceable. The final orders reflected the court's decision to balance the interests of justice with the applicant's right to liberty, pending the outcome of the trial.

Orders