Re Oksuz - [2017] VSC 588

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2017 0194

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by INAN OKSUZ

---

JUDGE:	BEACH JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	25–26 September 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 September 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Oksuz
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 588

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Threat to kill, threat to commit sexual offence, using controlled weapon without lawful excuse, recklessly cause injury, intentionally cause injury, common law assault, false imprisonment – Show cause situation – Whether unacceptable risk – Unacceptable risk – Cause not shown – Bail refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr A Grant	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr S Tovey	Grigor Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

The applicant is currently facing charges of making a threat to kill, threatening to commit a sexual offence, using a controlled weapon without lawful excuse, recklessly causing injury, intentionally causing injury, common law assault and false imprisonment. The charges all arise out of events alleged to have occurred in the early hours of Sunday 11 June 2017.

The applicant was arrested on, and has been in custody since, 11 June 2017. On 1 September 2017, the applicant filed an application for bail in this Court. The applicant has previously been refused bail in respect of the present charges, in the Magistrates’ Court, on 14 June 2017.

Having been charged with an indictable offence, involving the use of an offensive weapon, the applicant accepts that, by reason of the operation of s 4(4)(c) of the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’), he is in a ‘show cause situation’. That is, in this case, the Court must refuse bail unless the applicant ‘shows cause why his detention in custody is not justified’.

The alleged offending

The alleged offending involves one complainant. At the time of the alleged offending, the complainant had been in an intimate relationship with the applicant for approximately 17 months. Both parties maintained separate addresses. The complainant has two daughters, aged 15 and 21, from a previous relationship.

In summary, the Crown case is as follows. On 11 June 2017, the applicant and the complainant returned to the applicant’s home after having had dinner in a restaurant. There had been an ongoing verbal argument during dinner. On returning to the applicant’s home, the argument continued.

The argument became violent. It is alleged that the applicant struck the complainant multiple times to the head and face. The applicant used both his palm and clenched fist to continually hit the complainant to the head and face. The applicant also put his hands around the complainant’s neck and squeezed. The complainant describes finding it harder to breath, and not being able to take a breath.

At one point, the applicant pushed the complainant into a wall, causing the plaster wall to break and the complainant to land on 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 Oksuz

Details

AGLC: Re Oksuz [2017] VSC 588
Case: [2017] VSC 588
Decision Date: 28 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Re Oksuz involved the appellant, who was facing charges that included making threats to kill, threats to commit sexual offences, using a controlled weapon without lawful excuse, and recklessly or intentionally causing injury. The case was heard in the New South Wales Supreme Court, where the appellant sought to overturn a decision that had denied him bail. The underlying issue was whether the appellant posed an unacceptable risk to the community if granted bail, which would necessitate a show cause hearing.

The court was required to assess the gravity of the charges against the appellant, as well as the potential risk he posed if released on bail. The appellant's history of violence, his threats to kill and commit sexual offences, and the use of a controlled weapon were significant factors that the court considered. Additionally, the court examined whether the appellant's release would undermine the administration of justice or if there were any other compelling reasons to grant him bail. The court's analysis was guided by the need to balance the appellant's right to liberty with the need to protect the community and ensure the integrity of the judicial process.

After weighing the evidence and arguments presented, the court concluded that the appellant did indeed pose an unacceptable risk to the community. The severity and nature of the charges, along with the appellant's history of violence, led the court to find that the risk of reoffending if released on bail outweighed the appellant's right to liberty. Consequently, the court refused to grant bail and ordered that the appellant remain in custody. The court's decision underscored the importance of preventing individuals who pose a significant threat to the community from being at large while awaiting trial.

Orders