Re Tiba - [2021] VSC 429

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2021 0061

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by ADAM TIBA

---

JUDGE:	Coghlan JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6 July 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 July 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re application for bail by Tiba
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 429

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Murder – Exceptional circumstances not established – Applicant unacceptable risk of committing further offence.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr P Dunn QC with Ms J Kretzenbacher	Emma Turnbull Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr P Pickering	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

By application dated 21 June 2021, Adam Tiba (‘the applicant’), applied to this Court for bail. He is charged with murder contrary to common law, unintentional killing contrary to s 3A of the Crimes Act 1958 (‘Crimes Act’), attempted armed robbery and possessing a handgun without a licence. The applicant was arrested and charged in this matter on 21 October 2020, alongside two co-accused, Abdullah Hammoud and Tahmid Rahman. A further co-accused, Ammair Fahal, was arrested and charged on 13 January 2021.

The applicant has been remanded in custody since 21 October 2020 and has not previously applied for bail. Tahmid Rahman and Ammair Fahal are both on bail; Rahman having been granted bail by me on 21 May 2021,[1] and Fahal having been granted bail in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 22 March 2021. Abdullah Hammoud remains on remand.
[1]Re application for bail by Rahman [2021] VSC 402.

On 22 March 2021, each of the accused were committed to stand trial in this Court by way of the ‘fast-track’ procedure adopted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The matter is next listed for pre-trial cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, commencing in this Court on 21 September 2021.

On 6 July 2021 the matter came before me as an application for bail. I refused the application and indicated that I would publish my written reasons. These are those reasons.

The alleged offending

The circumstances of the alleged offending were set out in detail in my published reasons Re application for bail by Rahman [2020] VSC 748 and are repeated here.[2]
[2]Re application for bail by Rahman [2020] VSC 748, [6]–[20].

Background

At 11.30pm on 23 June 2020, Lorenzo Tigani and Dimitrios Pramatias attended Lakeside Drive in Roxburgh Park to purchase two pounds of cannabis from the co-accused the applicant and Mr Hammoud. Mr Pramatias requested to see the cannabis and the applicant then produced a .22 sawn-off rifle, which he pointed at Mr Tigani. A scuffle ensued, during the course of which stab wounds were inflicted on both the applicant and Mr Hammoud. Mr Tigani took possession of the rifle.

The applicant and Mr Hammoud fled from the scene and presented at the Emergency Department of the Northern…

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 Tiba

Details

AGLC: Re application for bail by Tiba [2021] VSC 429
Case: [2021] VSC 429
Decision Date: 29 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Tiba involved an application for bail made by the applicant, Tiba, who faced a charge of murder. The matter was heard in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. Tiba sought bail on the basis that there were exceptional circumstances warranting release, and that the interests of justice so required. The prosecution opposed the application, arguing that Tiba presented an unacceptable risk of reoffending and that the community would not be protected if he were granted bail.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether there were exceptional circumstances that would justify the release of Tiba on bail, considering the serious nature of the offence charged and the risk of reoffending. The court also had to weigh the interests of justice in the context of the potential for further offending and the protection of the community. The court considered the applicant's background, the seriousness of the alleged offence, and the risk factors associated with releasing him on bail.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the applicant had not established the existence of exceptional circumstances. The seriousness of the murder charge and the risk that Tiba would commit further offences if released on bail were significant factors against granting bail. The court concluded that the applicant presented an unacceptable risk to the community and that the interests of justice did not favour his release. Consequently, the application for bail was dismissed.

The court ordered that Tiba remain in custody pending the outcome of his criminal proceedings. The decision underscored the importance of balancing the rights of the accused with the need to protect the community from potential harm, particularly in cases involving serious offences such as murder.

Orders