Re Smith - [2021] VSC 485

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2021 0199

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

-and –

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by JAMIE SMITH

---

JUDGE:	Tinney J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	10 August 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 August 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Smith
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 485

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Causing explosions likely to endanger life – Detonation of pipe bombs in residential streets in the early evening – Property damage caused but potential for injury or death – 29 year old accused with some criminal history – Stable residence, relationship and employment – Strength of prosecution case – Long delay – Compelling reason not made out – Unacceptable risk in any event – Bail Act 1977 ss 1B, 3AAA, 4C, 4D, 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr J Lavery	Greg Thomas Barrister & Solicitor
For the Respondent	Mr A Sprague	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The applicant applies for bail on a number of charges he faces in connection with the detonation of eight explosive devices in the suburbs of Melbourne on the night of 4 July 2021. In total there are 24 charges, three in respect of each explosion. There are eight charges of causing an explosion likely to endanger life,[1] eight charges of reckless conduct endangering life,[2] and eight charges of reckless conduct endangering serious injury.[3] The reckless conduct charges are laid in the alternative to the charges of causing an explosion likely to endanger life. The maximum penalty for causing an explosion likely to endanger life is imprisonment for 15 years.
[1]Crimes Act 1958, s 317(2).
[2]Ibid s 22.
[3]Ibid s 23.

It is agreed between the parties that the Court is required to refuse bail unless satisfied that a compelling reason exists that justifies the grant of bail. This is because the applicant is accused of a Schedule 2 offence within the meaning of the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’).

Procedural summary

The applicant was arrested and charged on 15 July 2021. He made an application for bail on 17 July 2021 which was refused on the basis that he had not shown a compelling reason. The matter is next listed for the hearing of a committal mention at Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 7 October 2021.

The only co-accused at the time of the hearing of the application was the applicant’s brother Raymond Smith. He was charged on the same day as the applicant, and an application for bail was refused on the same day as that of the applicant.

On 12 August 2021, a third alleged offender, Rhys Molnar, was arrested and charged with the same offences as the applicant and his brother. He was remanded in custody and has thus far brought no application for bail.

Summary of alleged offending

On the evening of Sunday 4…

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 Smith

Details

AGLC: Re Smith [2021] VSC 485
Case: [2021] VSC 485
Decision Date: 12 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re Smith, the respondent appeared before the Court with a request for bail in relation to charges of causing explosions likely to endanger life. Smith, a 29-year-old individual with a history of criminal conduct, stands accused of detonating pipe bombs in residential streets during the early evening hours. Although no injuries or fatalities were reported, the potential for such harm was significant. The prosecution alleged that the explosions caused property damage and presented a serious risk to public safety. Smith, who has a stable residence, relationship, and employment, sought bail pending the resolution of the charges. The court had to determine whether bail was appropriate under the Bail Act 1977, considering the seriousness of the alleged offences, the potential for harm, and the respondent's background and circumstances.

The primary legal issues for the court to resolve included the gravity of the alleged offences, the risk to the community, and Smith's suitability for bail. The court had to weigh the potential for causing significant harm against Smith's personal circumstances and the strength of the prosecution's case. Additionally, the court had to consider whether there was a compelling reason for a long delay in the proceedings and whether this justified a refusal of bail. The court also needed to assess whether there were adequate reasons to refuse bail under the relevant sections of the Bail Act 1977.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the seriousness of the charges and the risk posed by the alleged conduct. It noted that while Smith had a stable personal life, the nature of the offences was highly concerning due to the potential for serious injury or death. The court found that the prosecution's case was strong, but the delay in the proceedings did not constitute a compelling reason for bail. Furthermore, the risk to the community and the potential for reoffending outweighed any mitigating factors. Consequently, the court concluded that it was not satisfied that the conditions of bail could adequately ensure the safety of the community or that Smith would appear for trial. The court thus decided to refuse bail, finding that the unacceptable risk to public safety could not be mitigated by any bail conditions.

The final orders of the court were that Smith's application for bail was refused. The court directed that Smith remain in custody pending the resolution of the charges against him. The court's decision underscored the gravity of the alleged offences and the need to protect the community from potential harm.

Orders