Re Smith-Goode - [2022] VSC 798

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2022 0321

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for bail by JAI SMITH-GOODE

---

JUDGE:	KAYE JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 December 2022
DATE OF RULING:	20 December 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Smith-Goode
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 798

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Bail application — Applicant charged with reckless conduct endangering life, recklessly causing injury, contravening Family Violence Intervention Order, stalking, making threat to kill, and committing indictable offence while on bail — Whether exceptional circumstances exist — Whether unacceptable risk — Applicant’s disadvantaged and dysfunctional upbringing — Availability of suitable programs while on bail — Delay — Difficult circumstances in custody during COVID-19 pandemic — Applicant of Aboriginal heritage- Bail granted with conditions — Bail Act 1977 ss 3A, 3AAA, 4A, 4AA, 4E, 5AAAA.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms S Joosten	Kurnai Legal Practice
For the Respondent	Inspector N Moran	Victoria Police

HIS HONOUR:

On 28 November 2022, the applicant was arrested and charged with a number of offences including: stalking; making a threat to kill; persistent contravention of an intervention order; committing an indictable offence while on bail; contravening a Family Violence Intervention Order (five charges); assault; and using a carriage service to harass. Subsequently, on 8 December a further twelve charges were added to the charge-sheet. They included: reckless conduct endangering life; recklessly causing injury; persistent contravention of a Family Violence Intervention Order (two charges); contravening a Family Violence Intervention Order (seven charges); and assault.

Following his arrest, the applicant, on 29 November, made an unsuccessful application for bail to the Latrobe Valley Magistrates’ Court. He now applies to this Court for bail.

Background circumstances

Most of the charges allege offending by the applicant against DS, with whom he was in a relationship for approximately six months, until it terminated on 17 September 2022.

In the early hours of 17 September, the applicant and DS had become involved in an argument while walking in the Traralgon area. It is alleged that, when DS tried to walk away, the applicant became angry, and did not permit her to leave. He threatened to assault her. When DS again attempted to walk away, the applicant grabbed her by the throat in an attempt to seize the collar of her jumper. DS then telephoned her sister, and the next morning they went to Traralgon Police Station where the incident was reported.

On the following day, 18 September, the applicant attended at the Coles store at Traralgon’s Centre Plaza, where, it is alleged, he stole a six-pack of eggs and some other food. While he was walking along the Princes Highway he was stopped by police and told he was under arrest. He resisted police, and pushed an ice cream into the face of one of the officers. When he was wrestled to the ground by police, he scratched…

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-Goode

Details

AGLC: Re Smith-Goode [2022] VSC 798
Case: [2022] VSC 798
Decision Date: 20 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Smith-Goode involved an application for bail by the applicant, who faced multiple serious charges including reckless conduct endangering life, recklessly causing injury, contravening a Family Violence Intervention Order, stalking, making a threat to kill, and committing an indictable offence while on bail. The matter was heard in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The applicant's legal team argued for bail based on the exceptional circumstances of the case, including the applicant's disadvantaged and dysfunctional upbringing, the availability of suitable programs while on bail, and the difficulties faced by the applicant due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The prosecution opposed the bail application, highlighting the seriousness of the charges and the risk of reoffending.

The court was tasked with determining whether exceptional circumstances existed under the Bail Act 1977 to grant bail, considering the risk of reoffending and the unacceptable risk to the community. The applicant's background and the specific conditions of their custody were also evaluated. The court examined the balance between the community's interest in safety and the applicant's right to freedom pending trial. It considered the potential for rehabilitation and the availability of support programs that could mitigate the risk of reoffending while on bail.

The court found that, despite the seriousness of the charges, the exceptional circumstances of the applicant's background and the availability of suitable support programs while on bail warranted the granting of bail. The court also acknowledged the significant delay in the proceedings and the challenging conditions in custody due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court was satisfied that the applicant, if granted bail, would not pose an unacceptable risk to the community and that suitable conditions could be imposed to ensure compliance and mitigate any potential risk. The court imposed a range of conditions to ensure the safety of the community and the applicant's compliance with the terms of bail.

The court granted bail to the applicant with a set of conditions aimed at ensuring the safety of the community and the applicant's compliance with the terms of bail. The applicant was required to reside at a specified address, to abide by a curfew, and to participate in any programs deemed appropriate by the court. The applicant was also required to surrender any passports or travel documents and to refrain from contacting certain individuals. The court's decision recognised the complexities of the applicant's situation and the need for a balanced approach that considered both the community's interests and the applicant's rights.

Orders