Re Rodgers - [2019] VSC 553

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2019 0157

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

- and -

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by CHRISTOPHER RODGERS

---

JUDGE:	TINNEY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 August 2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 August 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Rodgers
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 553

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Family violence offences alleged against wife and one child – Repeated offences involving pressure to neck of wife, one including use of ligature – Fractured hyoid bone found on examination after one event – Violence in front of children in family home – Intervention order and adjourned bond at time – Applicant the owner of a transport company – Financial future of company imperilled by continued incarceration of applicant – Whether compelling reason shown – Whether unacceptable risk – Serious offending – Strong prosecution case – Delay not lengthy – Compelling reason not shown – Unacceptable risk – Bail refused – Bail Act 1977, ss 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4AA, 4C, 4D, 4E, and 5AAAA.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr Damian Sheales	Tait Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr Stephen Payne	Legal and Prosecutions Specialists Branch, Victoria Police

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The applicant applies for bail on a number of charges laid against him on 25 May 2019 in respect of conduct alleged to have occurred between 3 December 2018 and 24 May 2019. The alleged offences arise out of family violence related incidents where the complainants include his former wife and children. The charges the applicant faces include multiple charges of causing injury intentionally and recklessly, a charge of recklessly causing serious injury, charges of reckless conduct endangering life and endangering person, a charge of making a threat to kill, drugs charges, a charge of criminal damage, and numerous breaches of family violence intervention orders (‘FVIOs’).

It is common ground between the parties that many of the charges the applicant faces including one charge of making a threat to kill under s 20 of the Crimes Act 1958 and numerous family violence related offences are Schedule 2 offences under the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’), which places the applicant in a position where he must demonstrate that a compelling reason exists in favour of bail.[1]
[1]Bail Act 1977, ss 4AA(3) and 4C.

Procedural history

Turning to the procedural history, the applicant was arrested by police on 24 May 2019, and has been in custody since such date. A previous application for bail was heard and bail was refused on 28 June 2019 in the Ballarat Magistrates’ Court.

Personal circumstances

The applicant is 34 years old and prior to his remand was the sole director of his own trucking business. He has lived in Ballarat for all of his life and comes from a supportive family who remain looking after the business whilst the applicant is incarcerated. The…

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 Rodgers

Details

AGLC: Re Rodgers [2019] VSC 553
Case: [2019] VSC 553
Decision Date: 20 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Rodgers involved the applicant seeking bail in relation to a series of alleged family violence offences against his wife and child. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary issue before the court was whether the applicant had demonstrated a compelling reason for bail, and whether his continued detention posed an unacceptable risk to the community.

The court considered the gravity of the alleged offences, which included incidents of pressure to the neck of the applicant’s wife, one involving the use of a ligature, resulting in a fractured hyoid bone. The court also took into account the fact that the offences were committed in the presence of the couple's children and that there was already an intervention order in place. The court noted that the applicant, being the owner of a transport company, argued that his financial future was at risk due to his continued incarceration. Despite this, the court found that the applicant had not shown a compelling reason for bail, and that there was an unacceptable risk to the community given the serious nature of the alleged offences and the strength of the prosecution’s case.

The court ultimately decided that the compelling reason for bail was not demonstrated, and the risk to the community was unacceptable. Therefore, the application for bail was refused. The court's decision was influenced by the seriousness of the allegations, the presence of children during the incidents, and the lack of a significant delay in the proceedings.

Orders