Re Thickens - [2024] VSC 743

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2024 0270

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

- and -

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by Travis Thickens

---

JUDGE:	Fox J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 November 2024
DATE OF RULING:	29 November 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Thickens
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 743

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Bail — Applicant charged with multiple offences including aggravated carjacking — Schedule 1 offence — Requirement to show exceptional circumstances — Applicant subject to a drug treatment order at time of alleged offending — Prior criminal history — Availability of residential rehabilitation — Exceptional circumstances established — Unacceptable risk alleged — Unacceptable risk not established — Application granted — Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E & Sch 1.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr B Nibbs	Office of Public Prosecution
For the Accused	Ms B East	Sarah Pratt and Associates

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

Travis Thickens (‘applicant’) applies for bail on the following 18 charges arising from five separate incidents:

(a) Aggravated carjacking (two charges);

(b) Theft of motor vehicle (two charges);

(c) Prohibited person possess imitation firearm (two charges);

(d) Drive whilst disqualified (two charges);

(e) Drive vehicle with false number plates affixed;

(f) Theft (three charges);

(g) Kidnapping (common law);

(h) Kidnapping (statutory);

(i) False imprisonment;

(j) Blackmail;

(k) Unlawful assault with a weapon; and

(l) Armed robbery.

It is common ground that the charges of aggravated carjacking are Schedule 1 offences pursuant to the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) (‘Act’).[1] The onus is on the applicant to satisfy the Court that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail.[2]
[1]Bail Act 1977 (Vic) sch 1 item 5 (‘the Act’).
[2]Ibid s 4AA(1).

Alleged offending

It is convenient to deal with the alleged offending chronologically.

Informant Waldron matter

The complainant, AF, created a Facebook advertisement seeking to sell his 2012 Volkswagen Golf GTI (‘Golf’). On 3 July 2024, the complainant received a Facebook message from a profile belonging to a person named ‘Aga’ asking to purchase the Golf for $14,500.00. The parties arranged for ‘Aga’ to view the Golf.

At approximately 8:15pm, a dark coloured BMW sedan attended at the complainant’s address. The applicant exited the driver’s side of the BMW. A co‑offender, Logan Mantel (‘Mantel’), remained in the passenger seat. The applicant approached the complainant and asked to test drive the Golf. The complainant allowed him to enter the driver’s seat. Mantel moved to the driver’s seat of the BMW while the complainant was showing the applicant the Golf. The complainant then heard a sound which he described as a firearm being ‘racked’ or ‘reloaded’.

Mantel exited the BMW and approached the complainant. He held a silver handgun in his hand, pointed it towards the complainant’s head and demanded his car keys and mobile phone. The complainant complied with the demand. The applicant then approached…

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 Thickens

Details

AGLC: Re Thickens [2024] VSC 743
Case: [2024] VSC 743
Decision Date: 29 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case was charged with a number of serious offences, including aggravated carjacking, and applied for bail. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The applicant faced a significant hurdle due to the nature of the charges, which included a Schedule 1 offence, requiring the court to consider exceptional circumstances before granting bail. The applicant had a prior criminal history and was subject to a drug treatment order at the time of the alleged offending. Additionally, residential rehabilitation was available to the applicant, which was a relevant factor in the court's consideration.

The primary legal issue the court needed to address was whether exceptional circumstances existed that warranted the granting of bail. The court was required to weigh the seriousness of the charges against the availability of suitable rehabilitation and the applicant's prospects of abiding by any bail conditions. In making this determination, the court considered the applicant's compliance with the drug treatment order, the potential for rehabilitation in a residential setting, and the risk of reoffending. The court also had to assess whether the risk posed to the community, if the applicant were released on bail, was unacceptable.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the exceptional circumstances were indeed established. The applicant's participation in a drug treatment program and the availability of residential rehabilitation were significant factors in favour of bail. The court was satisfied that the risk of reoffending was not unacceptably high, and the applicant's prospects of complying with bail conditions were reasonable. Consequently, the court granted the applicant bail. The court emphasised the importance of the applicant's engagement in rehabilitation programs to mitigate the risk of reoffending.

The final orders of the court included the release of the applicant on bail, subject to a number of conditions, including residence at a specified address and participation in a drug treatment program. The applicant was also required to adhere to a curfew and to regularly report to a bail justice. The court's decision highlighted the importance of considering individual circumstances, including the availability of rehabilitation, in the context of bail applications involving serious offences.

Orders