Re Salievski (Bail Application) - [2015] VSC 575

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2015 0141

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by LIRIM SALIEVSKI

---

JUDGE:	PRIEST JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 October 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	15 October 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Salievski (Bail Application)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 575

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Handling stolen goods and dealing with the proceeds of crime – Applicant required to ‘show cause’ – Whether detention justified – Whether unacceptable risk –Bail refused – Bail Act 1977 s 4(2)(d)(i), s4(4)(a).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr N Watt (Solicitor)	Ms Moricia Vrymoet, Australian Legal Practitioner for Victoria Police
For the Accused	Mr H M Roberts	Melasecca Kelly & Zayler

HIS HONOUR:

Lirim Salievski, the applicant, was refused bail in the Magistrates’ Court at Dandenong on 25 August 2015. He now seeks bail from this Court.

The applicant is aged 37 years. He has a long list of prior offences commencing in 1990, mainly for dishonesty, drug and driving offences. His history also includes several instances of failing to answer bail, although the last of those was in 2008. Significantly, on 5 May 2015 the applicant was sentenced to two years and three months’ imprisonment, suspended for three years, on a charge of attempting to pervert the cause of justice, false imprisonment and using a prohibited weapon.

On 12 May 2015 the applicant was charged with one charge of handling stolen goods[1] and one charge of negligently dealing with the proceeds of crime[2] (‘the present offences’).
[1]Crimes Act 1958, s 88(1).
[2]Crimes Act 1958, s 194(4).

The respondent opposes bail. It is submitted, first, that by virtue of s 4(4)(a) of the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’), the applicant is required to show cause why his detention in custody is not justified, in that he has been charged with an indictable offence that is alleged to have been committed while he was at large awaiting trial for another indictable offence; and, secondly, relying on s 4(2)(d)(i), it is submitted that there is an unacceptable risk that if released on bail the applicant would fail to surrender himself into custody to answer bail or would commit an offence whilst on bail.
When charged with the present offences, the applicant was subject to a suspended sentence of imprisonment imposed one week earlier. If found proven, the present offences will breach the suspended sentence, rendering the applicant liable to immediate imprisonment. This consideration, the respondent submits — particularly when viewed against the applicant’s previous bail history — renders the applicant a flight risk.

So far as the present offences are concerned, the prosecution case is that on Tuesday, 12 May 2015, at 10.30am, police attended premises at Unit 3, 5 Keys Street, Dandenong, to arrest a co-accused, Patrick Maher. The applicant was found inside Unit 3, together with Maher…

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 Salievski (Bail Application)

Details

AGLC: Re Salievski (Bail Application) [2015] VSC 575
Case: [2015] VSC 575
Decision Date: 15 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re Salievski, the applicant was before the court seeking bail in relation to charges of handling stolen goods and dealing with the proceeds of crime. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicant argued that he should be released on bail on the basis that the charges were relatively minor and that there was no risk of reoffending. The prosecution opposed the application on the grounds that the applicant had a history of similar offending and that there was a risk that he would reoffend if released on bail.

The court was required to consider whether the applicant had shown cause why he should be released on bail, and whether there were any unacceptable risks associated with his release. The court noted that the applicant had a history of similar offending, and that there was a risk that he would reoffend if released on bail. The court also noted that the applicant had failed to comply with previous bail conditions, and that there was a risk that he would fail to comply with any future bail conditions. The court concluded that the applicant had not shown cause why he should be released on bail, and that there was an unacceptable risk associated with his release.

Accordingly, the court refused the applicant's application for bail. The court noted that the Bail Act 1977 provided that a person who was charged with an offence was not entitled to bail unless the person showed cause why the person should be released on bail. The court found that the applicant had not shown cause why he should be released on bail, and that there was an unacceptable risk associated with his release. The court also noted that the Bail Act 1977 provided that the court should not grant bail if it was satisfied that the accused person would fail to appear before the court or would reoffend while on bail. The court found that there was a risk that the applicant would reoffend if released on bail, and that he would fail to comply with any future bail conditions.

The final orders of the court were that the applicant's application for bail was refused. The court noted that the applicant had a history of similar offending, and that there was a risk that he would reoffend if released on bail. The court also noted that the applicant had failed to comply with previous bail conditions, and that there was a risk that he would fail to comply with any future bail conditions. The court found that the applicant had not shown cause why he should be released on bail, and that there was an unacceptable risk associated with his release. The court refused the applicant's application for bail.

Orders