Re Trakci - [2022] VSC 530

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2022 0211

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

-and-

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by YASIN TRAKCI

---

JUDGE:	Niall JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	31 August 2022
DATE OF ORDERS:	31 August 2022
DATE OF REASONS:	8 September 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Trakci
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 530

---

CRIMINAL LAW – BAIL – Charges of trafficking drug of dependence, possessing drug of dependence, possessing prohibited weapon, being a prohibited person in possession of an imitation firearm, dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime, handling stolen goods and committing an indictable offence whilst on bail – Whether exceptional circumstances justifying grant of bail – Whether unacceptable risk – Residential rehabilitation program available – Bail granted with conditions – Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms C Marcs	Emma Turnbull Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr A Singh	Legal Services Department, Victoria Police

HIS HONOUR:

At the conclusion of the hearing, I granted bail to the applicant. What follows are my reasons for making that order.

By application filed 16 August 2022, the applicant applied for bail in this Court in relation to the following charges brought by Senior Constable Christopher Leonard (‘Leonard charges’):

(a) two counts of trafficking in a drug of dependence;

(b) two counts of possessing a drug of dependence;

(c) two counts of possessing a prohibited weapon;

(d) being a prohibited person in possession of an imitation firearm;

(e) dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime, namely $16,500;

(f) handling stolen goods; and

(g) committing an indictable offence whilst on bail.

The applicant was arrested on 10 June 2022. He has been in custody since his arrest. He was refused bail in the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court on 8 August 2022 on the basis that he failed to show exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of bail.

At the time of the alleged offending, the applicant was on bail in respect of the following charges:

(a) trafficking in a drug of dependence, possessing a drug of dependence and driving whilst suspended brought by Informant Reynolds; and

(b) trafficking in a drug of dependence, five counts of possessing a drug of dependence and committing an indictable offence whilst on bail brought by Informant Jovel.[1]

The applicant’s bail in respect of both matters was revoked following his remand on the Leonard charges.

[1]The material, at times, refers to the informant for these charges as being ‘Informant Luis Polanco’. I note that this is the same person as Informant Luis Jovel.

The alleged offending

Although it is the charges brought by Senior Constable Leonard that leads to the applicant’s current remand, it is convenient to refer to the alleged offending in chronological order.

Reynolds charges

On 4 September 2021, the applicant was observed driving a Volkswagen Golf motor vehicle. Police…

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 Trakci

Details

AGLC: Re Trakci [2022] VSC 530
Case: [2022] VSC 530
Decision Date: 31 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re Trakci, the applicant, Mr. Trakci, sought bail from the County Court of Victoria in relation to multiple serious charges. These included trafficking a drug of dependence, possessing a drug of dependence, possessing a prohibited weapon, being a prohibited person in possession of an imitation firearm, dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime, handling stolen goods, and committing an indictable offence while on bail. The charges stemmed from a series of criminal activities that allegedly involved the trafficking and possession of drugs, illegal weapons, and stolen goods.

The court was tasked with determining whether exceptional circumstances existed that would justify granting bail, and if the applicant posed an unacceptable risk to the community. The prosecution argued that the nature and seriousness of the charges, coupled with the risk of reoffending, necessitated the continued detention of the applicant. In contrast, the defence highlighted the applicant’s participation in a residential rehabilitation program, which they argued demonstrated a commitment to rehabilitation and reduced the risk of reoffending. The court considered the applicant’s background, the details of the alleged offences, and the availability of the rehabilitation program in reaching its decision.

The County Court found that, despite the serious nature of the charges, the applicant's enrolment in a residential rehabilitation program constituted an exceptional circumstance that warranted bail. The court concluded that the risk of reoffending was sufficiently mitigated by the program, and that the applicant was not an unacceptable risk to the community. Consequently, the court granted bail with stringent conditions, including residence requirements and regular reporting obligations, to ensure the safety of the community and the likelihood of the applicant attending the rehabilitation program. The court's decision was grounded in the principles of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic), particularly sections 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4A, 4D, and 4E.

Orders