| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2022 0101
| IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) |
| and |
| IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by JAMES PULEFOLAU |
---
JUDGE: | Champion J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 11 May 2022 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 19 May 2022 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Re Pulefolau |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VSC 266 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW — Application for bail — Applicant charged with multiple weapons, violence, theft, drugs and driving offences — Strength of prosecution cases – Delay – Exceptional circumstances not found— Unacceptable risk — Bail refused — Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant | Veronika Drago | Leanne Warren |
| For the Respondent | James Kibel | Victoria Police |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
By application dated 22 April 2022 James Pulefolau (the ‘applicant’), seeks an order for a grant of bail in respect of the four matters outlined below.
On 30 November 2017, the applicant was charged on summons by Senior Constable Williams (‘the Williams matters’) with offences alleged to have occurred on 24 September 2017, as follows:
·recklessly causing injury; and
·unlawful assault.
On 14 June 2020, the applicant was charged on summons by Senior Constable Jane Neil (‘the Neil matters’) with offences alleged to have occurred on 14 June 2020, as follows:
·unlicensed driving;
·driving while exceeding PCA; and
·driving while exceeding PCA within three hours of driving.
On 25 February 2021, the applicant was charged and bailed by Senior Constable Luke Haas (‘the Haas matters’) with offences alleged to have occurred on that day, as follows:
·possessing drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine;
·handling stolen goods, namely a firearms licence;
·possessing a controlled weapon;
·unlicensed driving;
·driving an unregistered motor vehicle;
·affixing false registration plates; and
·committing an indictable offence while on bail.
On 23 March 2022, the applicant was arrested and charged by Senior Constable Breanna Krause (‘the Krause matters’) with offences alleged to have occurred on 13 and 23 March 2022, as follows:
·affray;
·theft of vehicle keys, an Adidas bag and money of an unknown value;
·intentionally causing injury;
·recklessly causing injury;
·being armed with a firearm with criminal intent;
·possess a handgun without a licence (two charges);
·possessing an unregistered handgun;
·possessing a firearm without a licence and store said firearm in an insecure manner;
·possessing cartridge ammunition without a licence;
·possessing a prohibited weapon without exemption, namely a machete;
·possessing a Schedule 4 poison without authorisation or licence;
·possessing a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine;
·possessing a drug of dependence, namely cannabis;
·possessing a drug of dependence, namely cocaine;
·retention of stolen goods, namely a Medicare card;
·failing to provide to police with the passcode to his mobile phone;
·committing an indictable offence whilst on bail (three charges); and
·contravention of a conduct condition of bail (two charges).
At the time of committing the Krause matters, the applicant was on bail for the Williams, Neil and Haas matters,…
Continue reading Re Pulefolau
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Re Pulefolau [2022] VSC 266
- Case
- [2022] VSC 266
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court meticulously evaluated the seriousness of the charges against the applicant and the strength of the prosecution's evidence, noting that the allegations included multiple instances of violence, possession of dangerous weapons, and drug-related offences. It found that the charges were of a significant nature and the prosecution's case appeared strong. Additionally, the court acknowledged the delay in the proceedings but determined that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant bail. The court was particularly concerned about the unacceptable risk posed by the applicant to the community if released on bail. Consequently, the court decided that the risk to the community and the seriousness of the charges outweighed any considerations in favour of bail.
In its decision, the court upheld the applicant's refusal of bail, emphasising the substantial risk to the community and the strength of the prosecution's case. The court held that the exceptional circumstances necessary to grant bail were not present, and the unacceptable risk to the community precluded the granting of bail. The court’s decision was grounded in the statutory framework provided by the Bail Act 1977, specifically sections 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4A, 4D, and 4E. The court's final orders were to maintain the applicant in custody until the disposal of the charges against them.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.