JUDGE:	Elliott J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 March 2024
DATE OF RULING:	15 March 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Pritchard
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 133

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Serious offending – Charge of attempted murder – Schedule 1 offence – Requirement to show exceptional circumstances – Strength of prosecution case –Suitability of available accommodation – Family violence risks – Availability of treatment and support services – Exceptional circumstances not established – Applicant an unacceptable risk – Bail refused – Bail Act 1977 (Vic), ss 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E, 5AAAA.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the applicant	V Peters	Bowler & Co
For the respondent	F Holmes	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

A. Introduction

On 26 February 2024, a notice of intention to make an application for bail was filed on behalf of Frank Pritchard (“Pritchard”). Pritchard was arrested and remanded into custody on 30 April 2023 in relation to offending alleged to have occurred on that date and the previous evening. The charges against him include:
(1)Attempted murder, contrary to section 321M of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).[1]
[1]This was referred to as the head charge by the parties during oral argument.
(2)Causing serious injury intentionally, contrary to section 16 of the Crimes Act.
(3)Causing serious injury recklessly, contrary to section 17 of the Crimes Act.
(4)Causing injury intentionally, contrary to section 18 of the Crimes Act.
(5)Causing injury recklessly, contrary to section 18 of the Crimes Act.
(6)Two charges of assault, contrary to section 31 of the Crimes Act.
(7)Two charges of theft, contrary to section 74 of the Crimes Act.
(8)Contravening certain conduct conditions of bail, contrary to section 30A of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).
(9)Three charges of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, contrary to section 30B of the Bail Act.
(10)Robbery, contrary to section 75 of the Crimes Act.
(11)Two charges of threats to kill, contrary to section 20 of the Crimes Act.
(12)Possessing a drug of dependence, namely heroin, contrary to section 73 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic).
(13)Possessing a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine, contrary to section 73 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act.
(14)Possessing a controlled weapon without lawful excuse, contrary to section 6 of the Control of Weapons Act 1990 (Vic).
(15)Giving a false name to police, contrary to section 456AA of the Crimes Act.
(16)Three charges of dangerous driving, contrary to section 64 of the Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic).
(17)Driving whilst disqualified, contrary to section 30 of the Road Safety Act.
This is Pritchard’s first application for bail in relation to the alleged offending on 29 and 30 April 2023.…

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 Pritchard

Details

AGLC: Re Pritchard [2024] VSC 133
Case: [2024] VSC 133
Decision Date: 15 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Pritchard involved the applicant, Mr Pritchard, who sought bail following his charge with attempted murder, a Schedule 1 offence under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic). The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria, where the presiding judge had to determine whether Mr Pritchard was eligible for bail under the statutory criteria. The key legal issues centred around whether exceptional circumstances existed to warrant bail, given the serious nature of the charge, the strength of the prosecution's case, the suitability of available accommodation, and the potential risks associated with family violence and the availability of treatment and support services.

In evaluating these issues, the court meticulously examined the evidence presented regarding the circumstances of the alleged offence, the robustness of the prosecution's case, and the risks posed by Mr Pritchard to the community. The court found that the prosecution had established a strong prima facie case, highlighting the gravity of the charge and the likelihood of conviction. Additionally, concerns were raised about the suitability of available accommodation, which did not adequately mitigate the risks associated with his release. Furthermore, the court considered the risks of family violence and the availability of support services but concluded that these factors did not sufficiently establish exceptional circumstances that would justify bail.

Consequently, the court determined that Mr Pritchard remained an unacceptable risk to the community and denied his application for bail. The decision was grounded in the stringent requirements of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic), particularly sections 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E, and 5AAAA, which demand a high threshold for exceptional circumstances to be met in cases involving serious offending. The court's ruling was a reflection of the need to balance the rights of the accused with the imperative to protect public safety.

Orders