Re PJ (No 2) - [2024] VSC 498

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

SECR 2024 0179

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 years of age, a pseudonym has been adopted pursuant to s 534 of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic).

---

JUDGE:	Kaye JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 August 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 August 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re PJ (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 498

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Bail application — Applicant charged with aggravated burglary, theft, theft from motor vehicle, theft of motor vehicle, failing to stop vehicle after an accident, failing to stop vehicle at police direction, unlicensed driving, burglary, criminal damage by fire, dangerous driving while pursued by police, reckless conduct endangering serious injury, committing an indictable offence while on bail, threat to inflict serious injury, intentionally causing injury, intentionally damaging property — Whether exceptional circumstances established – Whether unacceptable risk of endangering the safety and welfare of others —Applicant 17 years of age — Extremely low intellect — Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 3A, 3B, 3AA, 4A, 4AA, 4D, 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms L Conwell	Stary Norton Halphen
For the Respondent	Mr N Watt	Victoria Police

HIS HONOUR:

The applicant, who is 17 years of age, is subject to eight separate sets of charges for indictable offences, alleged to have been committed between 14 October 2023 and 16 July 2024. He is also subject to three sets of summary charges in respect of offences, alleged to have been committed in September 2023 and June 2024. On 16 July 2024, the applicant’s most recent application for bail to the Bendigo Children’s Court was refused. He now applies to this Court for bail.

The alleged offending

For the purposes of the application, it is necessary to set out the circumstances of the alleged offending in brief detail.

(1) The Sutton charges

The first set of charges, laid by Detective Senior Constable Ashleigh Sutton, consists of two charges of theft from a motor vehicle, one charge of aggravated burglary and one charge of theft.

It is alleged that at 5:11 am on 14 October 2023, the applicant and his co-offender entered two unlocked motor vehicles in premises in Lobb St North Bendigo, from which they stole a number of items, including a backpack containing four chef’s knives, a wallet and two caps. The incident was captured on CCTV. Subsequently, at 6:30 am on the same morning, the applicant entered through the rear sliding door of premises in Bannister St, North Bendigo. At the time, the occupant of the premises was present. It is alleged that the applicant stole a number of items from inside the home, including the occupant’s handbag, which contained personal cards, her mobile telephone, cigarettes, and $750 in cash. A few minutes later, the applicant was sighted pacing…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Re PJ (No 2) [2024] VSC 498
Case: [2024] VSC 498
Decision Date: 23 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, a 17-year-old male, applied for bail following his arrest and charge with multiple serious offences, including aggravated burglary, theft, and dangerous driving. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The respondent, the state, opposed the bail application, citing the severity of the charges and the risk the applicant posed to the community. The applicant's history of reoffending while on bail was also considered.

The court was required to determine whether exceptional circumstances existed that warranted the applicant's release on bail, as well as whether the applicant posed an unacceptable risk to the safety and welfare of others. The applicant's age, low intellectual functioning, and history of offending while on bail were key considerations. The court considered these factors in light of the relevant provisions of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).

The court found that the applicant's extremely low intellect and history of reoffending while on bail did not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting bail. The court also determined that the applicant posed an unacceptable risk to the safety and welfare of others, given the nature and seriousness of the charges. The court was particularly concerned about the applicant's dangerous driving while being pursued by police and the potential for causing serious injury to others. Accordingly, the court denied the bail application.

The court ordered that the applicant remain in custody until the disposal of the charges against him. The court acknowledged the applicant's age and intellectual disability but found that these factors did not outweigh the need to protect the community from the risk posed by the applicant. The court also noted that the applicant's history of reoffending while on bail was a significant factor in its decision.

Orders