Re Pelle-Lopeti - [2023] VSC 776

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2023 0251

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

– and –

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by DENZEL PELLE-LOPETI

BETWEEN:

DENZEL PELLE-LOPETI	Applicant
and
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	CHAMPION J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	30 October 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	9 November 2023
DATE OF REASONS:	22 December 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Pelle-Lopeti
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 776

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Application for bail — Charges relating to aggravated home invasion, recklessly cause injury, robbery — No criminal history, two prior diversions — Young applicant — Family support — Youth Justice Bail support — Exceptional circumstances satisfied — Unacceptable risk not established — Bail granted — Bail Act 1977 (Vic), ss 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4AA, 4E, 18, 18AA, 18AB.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	L Dogger	Bowler & Co
For the Respondent	P Thorp	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Denzel Pelle‑Lopeti [‘the applicant’] is an 18 year old with no previous convictions, who has a significant substance use history and potential mental health issues, and who is remanded in adult custody for the first time.

He seeks bail in the following two matters:

Informant Detective Senior Constable Leigh Scanlon

(a) recklessly cause injury;

(b) attempted robbery;

(c) unlawful assault (two charges); and

(d) resist emergency worker.

Informant Senior Constable Daniel Carr

(a) aggravated home invasion;

(b) robbery;

(c) commit indictable offence whilst on bail (two charges); and

(d) contravene a conduct condition of bail (two charges).

Background

On 13 May 2023, the applicant was charged by Informant Scanlon in relation to offences he allegedly committed earlier that day. He was released on police bail the same day. This grant of bail included conditions, particularly relevant were non‑association conditions in regards to two co‑accused, Haithum Bahamdun and Aris Vervaet.

About two months later, on 15 July 2023, the applicant allegedly committed the offending encompassed in the Informant Carr matter.

On 22 August 2023, the applicant was charged and remanded in custody in relation to the Informant Carr matter.

On 23 August 2023 in the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court, the applicant was refused bail in relation to the Informant Carr matter[1] and had his bail revoked in the Informant Scanlon matter.
[1]On the basis that he failed to show exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of bail, and that there was an unacceptable risk he would endanger the safety or welfare of any person and commit an offence while on bail.

The applicant’s matters are next listed on:

(a) 2 November 2023 in the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court for mention (Informant Scanlon matter); and

(b) 14 November 2023 in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court for committal mention (Informant Carr matter).

The alleged offending
Informant Scanlon matter

At 3:00am on 13 May 2023, TF, SF, CB and AC [‘the complainants’] were approached by three offenders on High Street in Northcote, one of which is…

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 Pelle-Lopeti

Details

AGLC: Re Pelle-Lopeti [2023] VSC 776
Case: [2023] VSC 776
Decision Date: 9 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the County Court of Victoria, the case of Re Pelle-Lopeti involved an application for bail by the defendant, who was facing charges of aggravated home invasion, recklessly causing injury, and robbery. The applicant had no prior criminal history but had two prior diversions. The applicant was young, and there were claims of family support and Youth Justice Bail support available. The central issue before the court was whether the exceptional circumstances existed to grant bail, given the serious nature of the charges, and whether there was an unacceptable risk to the community if bail were to be granted.

The court considered the criteria outlined in the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) to determine if exceptional circumstances existed. It examined the seriousness of the offence, the likelihood of the applicant attending court, and the risk to the community. The court found that the exceptional circumstances test was satisfied due to the applicant's age, lack of criminal history, and support from family and Youth Justice Bail. The court concluded that there was no unacceptable risk to the community that would prevent the granting of bail, as the applicant had strong ties to the community and family support.

In light of the findings, the court granted the applicant bail under the conditions specified in the Bail Act. The orders included that the applicant was to reside at a specified address, observe a curfew, and report to a bail supervision officer. The court also imposed conditions regarding the applicant's travel and contact with certain individuals. The decision underscored the importance of considering the exceptional circumstances and the risk to the community in bail applications, particularly for young applicants with no criminal history.

Orders