IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by SOFIA SAM
---
JUDGE:
BEACH JA
WHERE HELD:
Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:
8 March 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
8 March 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:
Re Sam
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:
[2017] VSC 91
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Murder – Requirement to show ‘exceptional circumstances’ – Whether exceptional circumstances made out – Whether unacceptable risk of failing to answer bail or interfering with witnesses – Exceptional circumstances not shown - Bail refused.
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Crown
Mr P Rose QC
Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused
Mr P J Hannebery
Victoria Legal Aid
HIS HONOUR:
On 18 August 2016, the applicant was arrested and charged with the murder of her husband, Sam Abraham. The murder is alleged to have occurred between 13 and 14 October 2015. Upon her arrest, the applicant was remanded in custody. She has been in custody since her arrest.
On 15 February 2017, the applicant filed an application for bail. Because the applicant is charged with murder, bail must be refused unless the applicant can satisfy the Court that exceptional circumstances exist which justify the making of a bail order.[1]
[1]Section 13(2) of the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’).
Applicant’s background
The applicant is 32 years of age. She was born in India. She met the deceased in 2000. They commenced a romantic relationship in 2005, and were married in February 2008. In March 2009, they had a son.
In December 2012, the applicant and her son came to Australia. Initially, they resided with the applicant’s sister and her family. In May 2013, the deceased, who had been working in Dubai for approximately one year, moved to Australia. In July 2014, the applicant, the deceased and their son moved into rental accommodation in Epping. In July 2015, all three were granted permanent residency in Australia.
Prior to coming to Australia, the applicant completed Bachelor of Science and Master of Science degrees. She then obtained employment as a software engineer. In June 2015, the applicant commenced employment as a website developer. The applicant remained in this employment until her remand.
The applicant has no prior convictions, has never previously been on any form of bail and (as such) has never breached any bail conditions.
The alleged offending
In a statement made to police on 16 October 2015, the applicant recounted the events of the evening of 13 October and early morning of 14 October 2015 as follows. On 13 October, the applicant arrived home from grocery shopping at approximately 10:00 pm. The applicant offered to make the deceased dinner, but he declined as he had a headache and was not hungry. The applicant and the deceased argued briefly about money, and the deceased subsequently decided to go to bed. At 11:30 pm, the applicant…
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 Sam
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Re Sam [2017] VSC 91
Case
[2017] VSC 91
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter of Re Sam came before the Court, where the primary issue was the granting of bail for the accused who had been charged with murder. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the state. The accused, Sam, had been charged with the murder of a victim and was currently in custody awaiting trial. The legal issue at the heart of this case was whether the accused could be granted bail, given the serious nature of the charge and the risk factors associated with potential reoffending and witness interference.
The court was required to assess whether the accused had demonstrated exceptional circumstances that would warrant bail. The legal criteria for granting bail in such serious cases are stringent, requiring the court to be satisfied that the accused would not pose an unacceptable risk of failing to appear in court or interfering with witnesses. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, the accused's history, and any other relevant factors that might influence the decision. In this instance, the court needed to determine whether the accused had shown sufficient grounds to meet the high threshold of 'exceptional circumstances' required for bail in a murder case.
The court found that the accused had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting bail. The nature of the charge, being murder, inherently posed a significant risk of reoffending and potential interference with witnesses. Despite any arguments presented on behalf of the accused, the court concluded that the risk factors were too high to justify granting bail. Therefore, the court refused bail, upholding the principle that in cases of serious criminal charges, particularly murder, the burden of proving exceptional circumstances lies heavily on the accused. The court's decision was based on the need to protect the integrity of the judicial process and the safety of potential witnesses.