Re Scott - [2011] VSC 187

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. S CR 2011 00046

IN THE MATTER of an application for Bail: NATHAN SCOTT

---

JUDGE:	KAYE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 May 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	4 May 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Bail Application – Nathan Scott
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 187	First Revision: 9 September 2011

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Charge of murder – Whether exceptional circumstances – Strength of Crown case – Youth of applicant – Potential delay – Whether applicant unacceptable risk.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr M Roper	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions.
For the Applicant	Mr J Desmond	C. Marshall & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

The applicant, Nathan Scott, has been charged with the murder of Bree McLaren at Shepparton on 18 March 2011. The applicant was arrested and charged with that offence on 21 March. He has been in custody since that date and is currently in the Metropolitan Remand Centre. He applies to this Court for bail.

On the evening of the offence, the applicant was in the company of four other persons, Braydon Thomas, Taisha Scott, Jody Turvey and her sister, Simone Croxford. During the evening, the applicant and his friends had had dinner together to celebrate the applicant’s 19th birthday, which was to take place on the next day. They then drove around the Shepparton area in the applicant’s Holden Commodore motor vehicle. As the other members of the group had been drinking alcohol, Ms Jody Turvey took responsibility for driving the vehicle.

While they were driving, a female friend of the applicant telephoned the applicant and told him that Braydon Thomas’ sister had been casting untrue aspersions on her at a party which she was attending. As a result, Ms Turvey drove the vehicle to the house at which that part was taking place at 52 Gilchrist Street, Shepparton, which was the home of Matthew Ormiston.

Shortly after their arrival an argument occurred between Matthew Ormiston and the applicant. In the course of that argument, Mr Ormiston told the applicant to leave the premises and apparently he head butted the applicant. The two young men were separated and the applicant and his friends then left the premises with Ms Turvey still driving the vehicle.

Shortly after they departed, the applicant prevailed on Ms Turvey to change places with him in the vehicle. Accordingly, Ms Turvey stopped the vehicle and the applicant got into the driver’s seat. He was then observed to be in a very angry frame of mind. He was heard to yell out words to the effect “I’m going to kill that dog”. He then executed a burn out and drove at a fast speed past Mr Ormiston’s house in Gilchrist Street. As he did so, he yelled out words to the effect, “Come on dog, come and get me”. He drove to the next side street and executed a further U-turn,…

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 Scott

Details

AGLC: Bail Application – Nathan Scott [2011] VSC 187
Case: [2011] VSC 187
Decision Date: 4 May 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re Scott, the applicant faced a charge of murder and sought bail. The case was heard in the relevant court, where the applicant's application for bail was contested by the Crown on the basis of the seriousness of the offence and potential risk to the community. The central legal issues revolved around whether there were exceptional circumstances justifying the applicant's release on bail, considering the strength of the prosecution's case, the youth of the applicant, and the potential for delay in the proceedings. The court needed to weigh these factors against the applicant's right to liberty and the interests of justice.

The court meticulously analysed the evidence presented regarding the Crown's case strength, the applicant's background, and the potential impact of any delays on the trial. It examined the principle of exceptional circumstances and considered the youth of the applicant as a mitigating factor. The court also evaluated the risk posed by the applicant to the community and the likelihood of reoffending if granted bail. Ultimately, the court concluded that the exceptional circumstances did not outweigh the gravity of the charge and the need to ensure public safety. The court found that the applicant posed an unacceptable risk to the community if released on bail.

Consequently, the court denied the applicant's bail application. The reasoning was grounded in the need to protect the community and the seriousness of the charge, despite the youth of the applicant and the potential for delay. The court's decision underscored the importance of balancing the applicant's rights with the broader interests of justice and public safety.

Orders