Re Tata - [2024] VSC 378

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2024 0137

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

- and -

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by Michael TATA

---

JUDGE:	Tinney J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 July 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	5 July 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Tata
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 378

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – First time in custody – Alleged family violence offending against former partner and daughters – Threat to damage property by burning down house – Three threats to kill in family violence context – Reckless conduct endangering serious injury - Steps taken by applicant to carry out threats – Schedule 2 offences - Compelling reason test applicable – No criminal history – No bail history – Contested hearing not likely until at least late 2025 – Family violence intervention orders in place - Seriousness of alleged offending – Prosecution case reasonably strong - Time on remand will not exceed ultimate sentence if convicted – Supportive family and stable residence – Risk posed by applicant – Existence of compelling reason not established - Unacceptable risk in any event – Bail refused – Bail Act 1977 ss 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4AA, 4C, 4D, 4E, 5AAAA.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr S Cooper	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Respondent	Mr P Pickering	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The applicant applies for bail on charges of threatening to destroy/damage property, reckless conduct endangering a person, and making a threat to kill (3 charges).

It is agreed between the parties that I must refuse bail unless satisfied that a compelling reason exists that justifies the grant of bail. This is because the applicant is accused of Schedule 2 offences under the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’), namely, the charges of making a threat to kill, which are also family violence offences.[1]
[1]Schedule 2, Item 7.

Procedural history

The applicant was arrested and charged on 8 March 2024. Bail has been refused three times in the Magistrates’ Court, on 8 March, 2 April and 29 April 2024. Each refusal was by a different magistrate. On the first two occasions, bail was refused on the basis of unacceptable risk. On the final occasion, the learned magistrate considered a compelling reason had not been shown, and in the alternative, the applicant posed an unacceptable risk.

The charges faced by the applicant are next listed for a contested committal hearing at Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 16 October 2024.

The applicant is subject to three final family violence intervention orders (‘FVIOs’) made at Dandenong Magistrates’ Court on 14 March 2024, which were made shortly after the alleged offending.

The FVIOs protect his ex-partner, Donna Williams (‘Donna’), and their adult daughters, Misty and Mona Williams, and remain in effect until 14 March 2027. The FVIOs protecting Donna and Misty stipulate that the applicant must not, personally or through…

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 Tata

Details

AGLC: Re Tata [2024] VSC 378
Case: [2024] VSC 378
Decision Date: 5 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Tata involved an application for bail by the defendant, who was charged with multiple offences including threats to kill and reckless conduct endangering serious injury in the context of family violence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, who was in custody for the first time, was alleged to have threatened to burn down the house and made three threats to kill against his former partner and daughters. The prosecution argued that the alleged offending was serious, and the case was reasonably strong, with no contested hearing likely until late 2025. Family violence intervention orders were already in place, and the defendant had taken steps to carry out the threats.

The primary legal issue for the court was whether there was a compelling reason to grant the defendant bail under the Bail Act 1977. The defendant had no criminal history or bail history and had a supportive family and stable residence. However, the court considered the seriousness of the alleged offending, the prosecution's strong case, and the risk posed by the defendant. The court found that no compelling reason for bail had been established, and the risk to the community was unacceptable. The court also noted that the time the defendant would spend on remand would not exceed the ultimate sentence if convicted.

The court concluded that bail should be refused. The court considered the defendant's lack of criminal history and bail history, but emphasised the seriousness of the alleged offending and the strong prosecution case. The court found that the risk to the community was unacceptable, and no compelling reason for bail had been established. The court also noted that the defendant's time on remand would not exceed the ultimate sentence if convicted. The court made orders under the Bail Act 1977, including sections 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4AA, 4C, 4D, 4E, and 5AAAA, to refuse bail.

Orders