Re NP - [2021] VSC 857

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2021 0352

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by NP

---

JUDGE:	NIALL JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 December 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	16 December 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re NP
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 857

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Charges of aggravated carjacking and intentionally causing serious injury – Applicant on Community Correction Order at time of alleged offending – Strength of prosecution case – Whether exceptional circumstances exist justifying grant of bail – Whether unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of any person or committing an offence while on bail – Bail refused – Bail Act 1977 ss 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4D.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr C Thomson	Emma Turnbull Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr D Plummer	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

The applicant for bail, NP, is facing trial in the County Court on an indictment containing eight charges relating to two complainants. I have been told that the indictments will be severed and that there will be sequential trials. The two complainants are JP and LB. The trials are listed to commence in the Ballarat circuit of the County Court on 15 March 2022.

On 21 May 2021, the applicant was refused bail in respect of the matter concerning complainant LB on the basis that he had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying a grant of bail, and in any event, was considered to be an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety and welfare of any person or committing an offence if granted bail. At that point, it was contemplated that the trial would occur sometime in the course of the present year.

The alleged offending

As indicated, there are two separate complainants and two informants. In relation to the complainant, JP, the relevant circumstances are, in brief compass, as follows.

The complainant, JP, and the co-accused, PM, had known each other for approximately three years prior to the alleged offending, with the complainant previously working for PM. The relationship turned sour in 2019 due to the complainant and co-accused alleging thefts against each other.

Between November and December 2019, the complainant and co-accused exchanged text messages threatening to harm each other if the alleged stolen items were not returned. I understand that the applicant was not known to JP.

On 15 July 2020, PM arranged to attend the complainant’s residence in an attempt to retrieve some items. PM attended at 9:00 am that morning, with the applicant, an unknown male, and an unknown female.

The co-accused approached the complainant and began assaulting him by punching him to the body. The police allege that the applicant then began assaulting the complainant with a machete, whilst the unknown male assaulted him with a baseball bat. The applicant and unknown male told the…

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 NP

Details

AGLC: Re NP [2021] VSC 857
Case: [2021] VSC 857
Decision Date: 16 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Re NP is a case where the applicant, NP, applied for bail following charges of aggravated carjacking and intentionally causing serious injury. The matter was heard in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria. The prosecution opposed the bail application, arguing that NP posed an unacceptable risk to the community and was likely to commit further offences if released on bail.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether exceptional circumstances existed that justified the grant of bail and whether there was an unacceptable risk of NP endangering the safety or welfare of any person or committing an offence while on bail. The court considered the seriousness of the charges, NP's criminal history, and the strength of the prosecution's case in making its decision.

The court found that the charges against NP were serious and that the prosecution had presented a strong case. It was also noted that NP was on a Community Correction Order at the time of the alleged offending, indicating a recent history of criminal behaviour. The court concluded that there were no exceptional circumstances that would justify granting bail and that NP posed an unacceptable risk to the community. Therefore, the application for bail was refused under the Bail Act 1977.

The court's final orders were that NP remain in custody until the matter is further heard. The prosecution was directed to provide NP with a copy of the reasons for the decision to refuse bail. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring the safety and welfare of the community and the need to prevent further offending while the case is before the court.

Orders