Re Sahin - [2024] VSC 748

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2024 0265

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by Can SAHIN

---

JUDGE:	Elliott J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 November 2024
DATE OF RULING:	29 November 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Sahin
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 748

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Charges of burglary, theft, firearm and other offences – Prima facie entitlement to bail – Whether applicant an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of any other person, whether by committing an offence that has that effect or by any other means – Applicant not an unacceptable risk if bail granted for a fixed period – Bail granted for a fixed period – Bail Act 1977 (Vic), ss 1B, 3, 3AAA, 4D, 4E, 5AAA.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the applicant	J Moutsias	Giorgianni & Liang Lawyers
For the respondent	D Coombs	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

A. Introduction

On 15 October 2024, an application for bail was filed in this court on behalf of Can Sahin (“Sahin”).
On 4 September 2024, Sahin was arrested and charged in relation to a number of firearm, burglary, theft and other offences he is alleged to have committed between 31 August 2024 and 3 September 2024. He has been on remand since.
At the time of his arrest, Sahin was on bail in relation to a number of other alleged offences and was also the subject of a summons.[1]
[1]Further details of these matters are outlined in pars 33-86 below.
Sahin previously made 2 applications for bail in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria on 5 September 2024 and 16 October 2024. Both of these applications were refused on the basis that the prosecution had established that Sahin presented an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of any other person, whether by committing an offence that has that effect or by any other means.[2]
[2]Bail Act 1977 (Vic), s 4E(1)(a)(i).
In support of his application for bail before this court, it was submitted that any risk associated with a grant of bail could not be considered unacceptable. In that regard, Sahin placed particular weight on the supports available to him as part of the Court Integrated Services Program, as well as proposed conditions of bail and the offer of a bail guarantee to reduce any such risk to an acceptable level.
The application was opposed by the prosecution on the same ground as had previously been established in the Magistrates’ Court, namely that Sahin presented an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of any other person.
The matter was originally listed for hearing at 10.00am on 21 November 2024, but was required to be adjourned on that occasion. Consequently, the applicant was remanded in custody for a further week or so until 10.00am today. The principal reason for the matter not…

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 Sahin

Details

AGLC: Re Sahin [2024] VSC 748
Case: [2024] VSC 748
Decision Date: 29 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Sahin involved an application for bail by the defendant, who faced a range of serious charges including burglary, theft, and firearm offences. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The primary dispute centred on whether the defendant was entitled to bail, and if so, under what conditions, given the seriousness of the charges.

The court was required to determine if the defendant posed an unacceptable risk to the safety or welfare of any other person, either by committing further offences or by other means. It had to consider the principles laid out in the Bail Act 1977 (Vic), particularly sections 1B, 3, 3AAA, 4D, 4E, and 5AAA. The defendant's extensive criminal history and the gravity of the current charges were central to the court's assessment of risk.

After considering the evidence and arguments presented, the court concluded that while the defendant was not an unacceptable risk if bail was granted for a fixed period, it was in the interests of justice to impose certain conditions. These included residence restrictions, curfews, and regular reporting to police. The court granted bail for a fixed period, taking into account the defendant's compliance with these conditions. The decision highlighted the balance between the defendant's right to liberty and the need to protect the community from potential harm.

Orders