Re Ss - [2024] VSC 225

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2024 0063

Between:
SS	Applicant
-and-
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Croucher J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	3 May 2024
DATE OF ORDERS & REASONS:	7 May 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re SS
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 225

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Application for bail — Charges of contravening condition of supervision order, threats to kill, intimidation of person who may become involved in criminal investigation, using threatening words, unlawful assault (by words), offending on bail — Allegation that SS failed to submit to urinalysis in breach of supervision order, thereby also breaching condition of bail — Alleged that, six days later, SS again failed to submit to urinalysis in breach of supervision order, threatened to kill employee of Dorevitch, and her husband, and thereby breached bail again — SS on bail for charges including breach of supervision order — Extensive criminal history, including for violence — SS in custody for seven weeks since arrest — Charges of threat to kill and intimidation to be heard as summary contest in Magistrates’ Court before related charges of breaching supervision order etc to be heard summarily in Supreme Court — Final hearing in Magistrates’ Court not before end of year, and hearing in Supreme Court necessarily later still — Whether exceptional circumstances justifying bail — Whether, if bailed, unacceptable risk of endangering safety or welfare of others — Delay until finalisation of charges likely to exceed length of non‑parole period, if convicted — Likelihood that “special reason” concerning mental ill‑health would exist in sentencing, if convicted — Exceptional circumstances established — Strictures of supervision order reduce risk of offending on bail so as not to be unacceptable — Bail granted on own undertaking — Serious Offenders Act 2018 (Vic), ss 3, 31, 169 & 173‑176 & Schedule 3; Bail Act 1977 (Vic), ss 3AAA, 4AA, 4D, 4C, 30A & 30B; Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), ss 20 & 257(1); Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic), ss 17(1)(c) & 23; Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), ss 10AB & 10A.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr C Pearson	Balmer & Associates Pty
For the Respondent	Mx C Rattray	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Overview

SS[1] applies for bail. He was arrested on 20 March 2024 and subsequently charged with various offences, including breaches of his supervision order by failing to submit to urinalysis and by making threats to kill, thereby breaching his existing bail as well. On 21 March 2024, SS was refused bail in the Magistrates’ Court.
[1]SS’s name has been anonymised in these reasons in conformity with a previous order of the Court.

On 3 May 2024, I heard SS’s application for bail to this Court. I reserved my decision until today.

I am satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances justifying bail and I am not satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk that, if bailed, SS would endanger the safety…

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 Ss

Details

AGLC: Re Ss [2024] VSC 225
Case: [2024] VSC 225
Decision Date: 7 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re Ss, the applicant was before the Supreme Court of Victoria on an application for bail. The applicant had been in custody for seven weeks and was facing multiple charges including breaches of a supervision order, threats to kill, intimidation, and unlawful assault. The applicant had an extensive history of violence and had failed to submit to urinalysis on two occasions, allegedly contravening the conditions of his bail. The legal issues before the court involved whether exceptional circumstances existed to grant bail, and whether bail would result in an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of others.

The court considered the statutory provisions of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) and the Serious Offenders Act 2018 (Vic) in determining whether to grant bail. The applicant's criminal history, the nature of the charges, and the strict conditions of the supervision order were taken into account. The court concluded that the strictures of the supervision order would sufficiently mitigate the risk of reoffending while on bail. Additionally, the applicant's likelihood of receiving a lengthy non-parole period, if convicted, was considered. The court found that exceptional circumstances existed that justified granting bail, and that the risk to public safety was not unacceptable.

Consequently, the Supreme Court granted bail to the applicant on his own undertaking. The applicant was required to comply with strict bail conditions, including regular urinalysis and strict supervision. The court also noted that the delay in finalising the charges would likely exceed the non-parole period if the applicant was convicted, and that there would likely be a special reason concerning mental ill-health in sentencing, if convicted. This decision provides guidance on the factors courts must consider when determining whether to grant bail to an applicant with an extensive history of violence and who has failed to comply with the conditions of their bail.

Orders