Re Odlum - [2008] VSC 319

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1692 of 2008

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1997

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by LAWSON ODLUM

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 August 2008
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 August 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Lawson Odlum
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 319

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Attempted murder – “Show cause” situation – Youthful offender – No prior convictions – Bail Act 1977 (Vic) s 4(4)(c).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr S. Cash	C. Marshall & Associates
For the Respondent	Ms S. Borg	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Lawson Odlum has applied for bail. He is charged with a number of offences including attempted murder, intentionally causing serious injury, threat to kill, possess a prohibited weapon, possess a controlled weapon and possess amphetamine. Because a weapon was allegedly used in the commission of these offences, he must show cause why his detention is not justified under s 4(4)(c) of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) (“the Act”).

Circumstances of the Offence

The incident which gives rise to these charges occurred in the early morning of Sunday 8 June 2008 and is said to have been the result of a “road rage” incident at the intersection of Thompsons Road and Taylors Road in Carrum Downs. According to the statement of the victim, with which I have been provided, he and his wife were travelling in Carrum Downs sometime before midnight on 8 June 2008. They had left a birthday party and were going home. The wife was driving and as that was occurring they were suddenly passed by another vehicle driven by the accused travelling at high speed. The accused then stopped and as the victim and his wife attempted to pass the vehicle they were blocked by the accused’s vehicle. This process was repeated but finished with the accused stopping the vehicle and walking towards the victim’s vehicle which he then proceeded to kick. As the accused confronted the victim on the passenger side of the vehicle, the door of the vehicle opened and the accused then threatened to kill the victim. The victim was then struck by the accused with a knife and after a large number of these blows he realised he had been stabbed. He told his wife to leave as best she could because he thought he was going to die. The accused apparently left the scene and an ambulance was called by the wife of the victim. He suffered from a number of serious stab wounds to his lower back, wrist and thumb which required emergency surgery.

On 11 June 2008 the applicant appeared at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court and applied for bail. That application was refused.

As I have already noted, because the applicant is charged with an offence in the course of committing which he is alleged to…

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 Odlum

Details

AGLC: Re Odlum [2008] VSC 319
Case: [2008] VSC 319
Decision Date: 25 August 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Odlum involved an application for bail by a young offender who had been charged with attempted murder. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary concern was whether the defendant, who had no prior convictions and was considered a youthful offender, met the criteria for bail under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).

The court had to determine whether the defendant's case constituted a "show cause" situation, which would require the prosecution to demonstrate why bail should not be granted. This involved assessing the likelihood of the defendant appearing in court, the seriousness of the offence, and the impact of granting bail on the community. The court also needed to consider the defendant's background, age, and potential for rehabilitation.

The court concluded that the defendant's case did not meet the criteria for a "show cause" situation. It found that the seriousness of the attempted murder charge, coupled with the defendant's lack of prior convictions, did not support an automatic grant of bail. The court emphasised that the seriousness of the offence and the need to protect the community were paramount considerations. As a result, the application for bail was dismissed.

Orders