Re PJ - [2024] VSC 97

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2024 0033

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by PJ (a pseudonym)[1]

[1]As the applicant is under 18, a pseudonym has been adopted pursuant to s 534 of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic).

---

JUDGE:	Incerti J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	26 February 2024
DATE OF ORDERS:	26 February 2024
DATE OF RULING:	7 March 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re PJ
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 97

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail application – Applicant charged with theft, theft from motor vehicle, theft of motor vehicle, fail to stop vehicle after an accident, fail to stop vehicle at police direction, unlicensed driving, burglary, criminal damage by fire, dangerous driving while pursued by police, reckless conduct endangering serious injury, drive at a speed dangerous, aggravated burglary, commit an indictable offence while on bail, threat to inflict serious injury, intentionally causing injury, intentionally damaging property – HA v The Queen [2021] VSCA 64 – Whether exceptional circumstances exist – Whether unacceptable risk – Applicant identifies as Aboriginal – Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 1B(1), 3A, 3B, 3AAA, 4A, 4AA, 4E – Bail of children – Cogent evidence.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr A Rankin	Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service
For the Respondent	Ms A Buzo	Victoria Police

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

I heard an application for bail by PJ (‘the applicant’) on 26 February 2024 and granted him bail. These are my reasons.

The applicant is a 16-year-old child who identifies as Aboriginal. The applicant seeks bail on the following charges filed by informants Detective Senior Constable (‘DSC’) Sally Graham and DSC Jessie Uren:

DSC Jessie Uren, charged on 7 January 2024(a)

(i) theft (six charges);

(ii) theft from motor vehicle (two charges);

(iii) attempted theft from motor vehicle (three charges);

(iv) attempted aggravated burglary;

(v) theft of motor vehicle (three charges);

(vi) fail to stop vehicle after an accident;

(vii) fail to stop vehicle at police direction (two charges);

(viii) unlicensed driving (three charges);

(ix)burglary;

(x) criminal damage by fire;

(xi)dangerous driving while pursued by police;

(xii) reckless conduct endangering serious injury;

(xiii) drive at a speed dangerous; and

(xiv) aggravated burglary.[2]
[2]Affidavit in Support of an Application for Bail filed 19 February 2024 (‘Affidavit in Support’), Exhibit “AR-1”, 18-22; Affidavit in Response to an Application for Bail filed 22 February 2024 (‘Affidavit in Response’), Exhibit “LCH-1”, Appendix A.

DSC Sally Graham, charged on 23 January 2024(b)

(i) aggravated burglary;

(ii) commit an indictable offence while on bail;

(iii) theft of motor vehicle;

(iv) threat to inflict serious injury;

(v) reckless conduct endangering serious injury;

(vi) recklessly causing injury (three charges);

(vii) threat to inflict serious injury; and

(viii) intentionally causing injury.

On 7 January 2024, the applicant was granted Youth Justice Supervised Bail at the Weekend Online Remand Court in relation to the informant…

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 PJ

Details

AGLC: Re PJ [2024] VSC 97
Case: [2024] VSC 97
Decision Date: 7 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re PJ, the applicant, who is charged with a multitude of serious offences including theft, burglary, dangerous driving, and assault, made an application for bail. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The respondent, the Director of Public Prosecutions, opposed the bail application on the grounds of the severity of the charges and the risk of reoffending. The applicant, who identifies as Aboriginal, argued that exceptional circumstances warranted the grant of bail.

The central legal issues for the court to decide were whether exceptional circumstances existed under section 3A of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) and whether the applicant posed an unacceptable risk to the community if released on bail, under section 3B. The court needed to weigh the applicant's right to liberty against the need to protect the community and ensure the applicant's appearance in court. The court also had to consider the impact of the applicant's Aboriginal identity on the assessment of the risk and the exceptional circumstances.

The court examined the nature and seriousness of the charges against the applicant, noting the high level of violence and criminal behaviour involved. In assessing the risk of reoffending, the court considered the applicant's criminal history, which included multiple previous charges and convictions. The court acknowledged the applicant's Aboriginal identity and its potential impact on the risk assessment, but ultimately found that it did not constitute an exceptional circumstance. The court concluded that the risk of reoffending and the potential danger to the community were too high to grant bail, even in light of the applicant's Aboriginal identity.

The County Court refused the bail application. The court ordered that the applicant remain in custody until the matter is further heard.

Orders