Re Oberin - [2022] VSC 17

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2021 0056

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by DANIEL OBERIN

---

JUDGE:	PRIEST JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 January 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	27 January 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Oberin
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 17

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Manslaughter – Schedule 2 offence – Requirement to show compelling reason why detention in custody not justified – Compelling reasons shown – Bail granted – Bail Act 1977, ss 3AAA, 4AA, 4C, 4D and 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr D Dann QC with Mr M McGrath	Galbally & O’Bryan
For the Respondent	Mr P Bourke QC	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Although he was, on 16 April 2021, initially committed for trial on a charge of murder, an indictment filed in the Supreme Court on 1 October 2021 now charges the applicant with manslaughter. His trial is fixed to commence in the Supreme Court sitting at Bendigo on 2 May 2022.

For the purposes of the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’), manslaughter is a Schedule 2 offence.[1] Hence, the Act requires this Court to refuse the applicant bail ‘unless satisfied that a compelling reason exists that justifies the grant of bail’.[2] The applicant bears the burden of satisfying the Court as to the existence of a compelling reason.[3] In considering whether a compelling reason exists, the Court is required to take into account the surrounding circumstances.[4]
[1]See Schedule 2, item 2.
[2]See s 4C(1A) of the Act.
[3]See s 4C(2) of the Act.
[4]See s 4C(3) of the Act.

Section 3AAA(1) of the Act sets out surrounding circumstances, so that (so far as relevant) the Court

must take into account all the circumstances that are relevant to the matter including, but not limited to, the following—
(a)the nature and seriousness of the alleged offending, including whether it is a serious example of the offence;
(b) the strength of the prosecution case;

(c)the accused’s criminal history;
(d)the extent to which the accused has complied with the conditions of any earlier grant of bail;
(e)whether, at the time of the alleged offending, the accused—
(i)was on bail for another offence; or
(ii)was subject to a summons to answer to a charge for another offence; or
(iii)was at large awaiting trial for another offence; or
(iv)was released under a parole order; or
(v)was subject to a community correction order made in respect of, or was otherwise serving a sentence for, another offence;
…

(g)the accused’s personal circumstances, associations, home environment and background;
…
(i)the availability of treatment or bail support services;
(j)any known view or likely view of an alleged victim of the offending on the grant of bail, the amount of bail or the conditions of bail;
(k)the length of time the accused is likely to spend…

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 Oberin

Details

AGLC: Re Oberin [2022] VSC 17
Case: [2022] VSC 17
Decision Date: 27 January 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Oberin was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The applicant, Oberin, was seeking bail in relation to a charge of manslaughter, which is a Schedule 2 offence. The primary focus of the hearing was to determine whether compelling reasons existed to justify Oberin’s continued detention in custody. The legal issues at hand revolved around the interpretation and application of the Bail Act 1977, specifically sections 3AAA, 4AA, 4C, 4D, and 4E, in the context of a Schedule 2 offence.

The court needed to assess whether Oberin met the threshold of showing compelling reasons to grant bail, given the serious nature of the offence. The applicant argued that there were substantial grounds to support his release, citing personal circumstances and community ties that would ensure his appearance in court. The prosecution opposed bail, emphasising the gravity of the charge and the need for Oberin to remain in custody to prevent any potential reoffending or interference with witnesses. The court balanced these considerations and examined whether the compelling reasons presented by Oberin outweighed the risk factors associated with his release.

After thorough deliberation, the court found that Oberin had indeed presented compelling reasons for his release on bail. The court acknowledged the strength of Oberin’s ties to the community, his cooperation with authorities, and the improbability of him reoffending if granted bail. It was concluded that these factors were sufficient to justify his release pending trial. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion under the Bail Act 1977 to grant bail to Oberin. The court’s decision was grounded in the principle that bail should not be denied unless there are substantial reasons to the contrary, particularly when compelling reasons are demonstrated by the applicant.

Orders