Re Sazdov - [2008] VSC 605

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

PRACTICE COURT

No. 1449 of 2008

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

And

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by DANIEL SAZDOV

---

JUDGE:	CAVANOUGH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 December 2008
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	24 December 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Daniel Sazdov
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 605	First Revision: 8/1/09

---

BAIL – Murder and other alleged offences of violence – Exceptional circumstances not shown – Cause not shown – Unacceptable risk established – Application refused - Bail Act 1977

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr A. Scheid	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr L. Gwynn	Clarebrough Pica

HIS HONOUR:

This is an application for bail by Daniel Sazdov pursuant to an application filed on 16 December 2008. The applicant was born on 4 December 1987 and was 20 years of age at the time of the alleged offences. He is currently in the Metropolitan Remand Centre.

He is charged with four other co‑accused. He is charged with four counts of intentionally causing serious injury, four counts of recklessly causing serious injury, two counts of intentionally causing injury, two counts of recklessly causing injury and one count of affray; and also with one count of murder, the alleged victim being Doa Tran, who died on 29 February 2008. The alleged offences occurred on 22 February 2008.

Sub-section 4(2) of the Bail Act 1977 provides that a court shall refuse bail in the case of a person charged with murder except in accordance with section 13 of the Act, which in turn requires that bail shall not be granted to a person charged with murder unless the court is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist which justify the making of such an order.

The offences alleged against the applicant other than murder are show cause offences for the purposes of s 4(4)(c) of the Bail Act, because it is alleged that the accused and persons allegedly acting in concert with him used offensive weapons on the relevant occasions. Further, s 4(2)(d) provides that the court shall refuse bail if satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk that the accused person, if released on bail, would fail to surrender himself into custody in answer to his bail, commit an offence whilst on bail, endanger the safety and welfare of members of the public, or interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice whether in relation to himself or any other person.

The applicant has the onus of satisfying the court of exceptional circumstances within the meaning of s.13 of the Bail Act, and the onus of showing cause why bail should be granted for the purposes of s 4(4)(c) of the Act, whereas the Crown has the onus of satisfying the court in relation to any matters relied upon by way of unacceptable risk pursuant to s 4(2)(d) of…

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 Sazdov

Details

AGLC: Re Sazdov [2008] VSC 605
Case: [2008] VSC 605
Decision Date: 24 December 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Sazdov involved an application for bail against the defendant, who was facing multiple charges including murder and other violent offences. The application was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court was required to determine whether the defendant met the criteria for bail under the Bail Act 1977, specifically considering the seriousness of the alleged offences and the risk to the community if bail were to be granted.

The primary legal issue was whether the exceptional circumstances necessary for the grant of bail existed, given the gravity of the charges and the risk to the community. The court examined the evidence provided by both parties and considered the principles set out in the Bail Act. It assessed whether the defendant demonstrated a cause for bail and whether the risk to the community was acceptable. The court also took into account the risk of reoffending and the likelihood of the defendant appearing at the trial if released on bail.

In its decision, the court found that the exceptional circumstances required for bail had not been established. The defendant had not shown sufficient cause to warrant bail, and the risk to the community was deemed unacceptable. The court concluded that the seriousness of the charges and the potential for reoffending outweighed any potential benefits of granting bail. Therefore, the application was refused. The court's decision was grounded in the principles of the Bail Act, which prioritise the safety and interests of the community over the personal circumstances of the defendant.

Orders