Re Stephens - [2024] VSC 695

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2024 0212

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by BRYCE STEPHENS

BETWEEN:

BRYCE STEPHENS	Applicant
and
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Champion J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 October 2024; 22 October 2024; 4 November 2024
DATE OF RULING:	4 November 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Stephens
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 695

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Charges of intentionally causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence, intentionally causing serious injury, affray, common law assault – First Nations man – Intellectual disability – Cognitive impairment – Criminal History – Support from CISP and Disability Justice – Strength of prosecution case – Compelling reasons satisfied – Unacceptable risk not found – Bail granted with strict conditions.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	V Vuu	Shanelle Veit Lawyers
For the Respondent	R Barrett	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

By application dated 13 September 2024, Bryce Stephens (‘the applicant’) applies for a grant of bail from this Court.

The applicant is a 28-year-old First Nations man, who seeks bail on one charge of intentionally causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence;[1] one charge of intentionally causing serious injury;[2] one charge of affray;[3] and one charge of common law assault,[4] each alleged to have been committed on 8 January 2024.
[1]Contrary to s 15A(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
[2]Contrary to s 16 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
[3]Contrary to s 195H(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
[4]Contrary to Common Law.

The applicant has one co-accused, DB, who has been committed to stand trial with respect to the matters with which he has been charged in relation to the alleged offending.

There having been a committal at which the applicant was committed for trial on the matters above, he has pleaded not guilty to the charges. An initial directions hearing with respect to this matter was listed at the County Court of Victoria on 1 November 2024. A date for the applicant’s trial is not yet set.

Procedural history

On 2 February 2024, the applicant was arrested, charged, and remanded with respect to the alleged offending. The matter was first listed for a filing hearing at the Ballarat Magistrates’ Court on 5 February 2024, during which no application for bail was made, and the applicant was remanded back into custody.

On 13 February 2024, an initial application for bail was made in the same Court and bail was refused. A further bail application was heard at the same Court on 7 August 2024. On 9 August 2024, the applicant was again denied bail on the grounds that, although compelling reason had been established, the learned Magistrate concluded there still existed an unacceptable risk.

On 7 October 2024, the matter was listed for a committal hearing at the Ballarat Magistrates’…

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 Stephens

Details

AGLC: Re Stephens [2024] VSC 695
Case: [2024] VSC 695
Decision Date: 4 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re Stephens, the applicant, who is a First Nations man, was before the court to apply for bail on multiple charges, including intentionally causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence, intentionally causing serious injury, affray, and common law assault. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicant, who has a history of criminal offending and is described as having intellectual disabilities and cognitive impairments, has the support of the Community Intervention Support Program and Disability Justice. The prosecution opposed the bail application on the basis of the seriousness of the charges and the risk of reoffending. The court was required to balance the applicant’s rights to liberty with the need to ensure the safety of the community and the likely success of the prosecution case.

The court considered the principles of bail and the circumstances of the case, including the nature and seriousness of the charges, the applicant's criminal history, and the risk of reoffending. The court noted the applicant’s support network and the absence of any unacceptable risk to the community. The prosecution case was found to be strong, but the court was satisfied that there were compelling reasons for the applicant to be granted bail. The court found that the risk of reoffending was not unacceptably high and that the applicant could be released on strict conditions that would ensure the safety of the community. The court ultimately decided to grant bail with strict conditions.

The court granted the applicant bail, subject to strict conditions, including a curfew, regular check-ins with the Community Intervention Support Program, and other measures designed to ensure the safety of the community and to prevent the applicant from reoffending. The court also ordered that the applicant attend any appointments or programs as required by the Community Intervention Support Program and Disability Justice. The court found that the applicant’s rights to liberty were not outweighed by the need to ensure the safety of the community and that the strict conditions would provide sufficient safeguards. The final orders of the court were that the applicant be released on bail, subject to the strict conditions outlined in the judgment.

Orders