Re Sofele - [2022] VSC 409

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2022 0127

IN THE MATTER OF an application for Bail by TREVOR SOFELE

and

IN THE MATTER OF the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

---

JUDGE:	Champion J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 June 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	18 June 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Sofele
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 409

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Application for bail — Applicant charged with multiple weapons, violence and theft offences — Strength of prosecution cases — Delay — Compelling reasons found — Unacceptable risk not established — Bail granted — Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 1B, s 3AAA, 4A, 4C, 4E, 5AAAA.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr R Revill	Richard Revill Solicitors
For the Respondent	Mr N Watt	Victoria Police

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

By application filed 18 May 2022, Trevor Sofele (‘the applicant’), seeks bail from this Court on the following three matters.

Senior Constable Trent McLure

· theft (four charges)

Senior Constable Neil Purkiss

· unlawful assault

Senior Constable Breanna Krause

·affray;
·theft;
·intentionally causing injury;
·recklessly causing injury;
·threatening to inflict serious injury;
·being armed with a firearm with criminal intent;
·being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm; and
·committing an indictable offence whilst on bail.

Procedural history

On 16 March 2020, the applicant was arrested, charged and released on police bail in the informant McLure matter.

On 1 April 2021, the applicant was charged on summons in the Purkiss matter. He failed to appear in answer to that summons on 3 May 2021 and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. On 4 July 2021, police arrested the applicant pursuant to the warrant and granted him bail.

On 23 March 2022, the applicant was arrested, charged and remanded in custody in the Krause matter. He was refused bail the same day at Werribee Magistrates’ Court on the grounds that there was an unacceptable risk that he would commit an offence whilst on bail or endanger the safety or welfare of any person.

On 7 April 2022, the applicant again applied for and was refused bail at the Werribee Magistrates’ Court in the Krause matter. The same day, bail was revoked in the McLure and Purkiss matters.

There is one co-accused in the Krause matter, James Pulefolau.[1] He has been refused bail twice, first on 7 April 2022 at Werribee Magistrates’ Court, and second on 19 May 2022 in this Court.[2]
[1]The co-accused is charged with affray, theft, intentionally causing injury, recklessly causing injury, armed with a firearm with criminal intent, possess a handgun without a licence (two charges), possess an unregistered handgun, possess a firearm without a licence and store said firearm in an insecure manner, possess cartridge ammunition without a licence, possess a machete, possess Schedule 4 poison, possess drug of dependence (three charges), retention of stolen goods, fail to provide police the passcode to his mobile phone, commit an indictable offence whilst on…

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 Sofele

Details

AGLC: Re Sofele [2022] VSC 409
Case: [2022] VSC 409
Decision Date: 18 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Sofele involved the applicant, who was charged with multiple serious offences including possession of weapons, violent offences, and theft. The matter was heard in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria, where the primary concern was the applicant's eligibility for bail under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic). The prosecution opposed bail due to the severity of the charges and the potential risk to the community if the applicant were to be released. The court had to determine whether there were compelling reasons for granting bail and whether the applicant posed an unacceptable risk to the community or to any person if released on bail.

The court considered several legal issues, including the nature and seriousness of the offences, the strength of the prosecution's case, and any potential delay in the proceedings. The applicant argued that there were compelling reasons for granting bail, such as the significant delay in the proceedings and the applicant's personal circumstances. The prosecution contended that the severity of the charges and the risk to the community were sufficient grounds to deny bail. The court had to weigh the applicant's right to liberty against the need to protect the community and ensure the fair administration of justice.

In reaching its decision, the court found that while the offences were serious, the prosecution had not established that the applicant posed an unacceptable risk to the community if granted bail. The court also found compelling reasons for granting bail, including the delay in the proceedings and the applicant's personal circumstances. The court was satisfied that appropriate bail conditions could be imposed to mitigate any potential risk. Consequently, the court granted the applicant bail under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).

The final orders of the court included the granting of bail to the applicant, subject to specific conditions designed to ensure compliance and mitigate any risk to the community. These conditions likely included regular reporting to a bail justice, residence restrictions, and possibly electronic monitoring. The court emphasised the importance of the applicant adhering to these conditions to maintain the balance between the applicant's rights and the need to protect the community.

Orders