Re Troon - [2024] VSC 607

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2024 0196
S ECR 2024 0207

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by TONI-ALLAN TROON

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by GARY THORNE

---

JUDGE:	Walker JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 September 2024
DATE OF ORDERS:	24 September 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 October 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Troon; Re Thorne
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 607

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail application – Co-accused – Applicants facing multiple charges including home invasion, intentionally cause serious injury, reckless conduct endangering life, aggravated burglary with a firearm, armed robbery and common law assault – Delay and strength of prosecution case relevant to both applicants – First applicant had family support, stable accommodation and no criminal history – Second applicant had lengthy criminal history, limited supports available and no appropriate accommodation – Compelling reason and no unacceptable risk of reoffending in respect of first applicant – Bail granted in respect of first applicant – No compelling reason and unacceptable risk of reoffending in respect of second applicant – Bail refused in respect of second applicant.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the First Applicant	Mr D Rofe	Chester Metcalfe & Co
For the Second Applicant	Mr S Thomas	Balmer & Associates
For the Respondent	Ms A Moran	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HER HONOUR:

On 9 May 2024 two men arrived at the home of Jesse Nicol. They entered his home and are alleged to have assaulted the two persons present there, Mr Nicol and Michelle Speth. A firearm was used in the course of the assault. Mr Nicol was seriously injured, including having a gunshot wound in the area of his shoulder. Mr Nicol identified one of the men as ‘Gary’. Ms Speth identified the same man as Gary Thorne. They did not know the other man. Police allege that the second man was Toni-Allan Troon.

Mr Thorne has been charged with 10 offences arising from the events of 9 May 2024 and its aftermath, and Mr Troon has been charged with 11 offences. The offences include home invasion; intentionally cause serious injury; reckless conduct endangering life; aggravated burglary with a firearm; armed robbery; and common law assault.

Mr Thorne and Mr Troon applied for bail in this Court.[1] On 24 September 2024 I granted Mr Troon’s application for bail, upon conditions, and I refused Mr Thorne’s application for bail.
[1]Both accused had previously applied for bail at the Horsham Magistrates’ Court, where bail was refused.

On that day I stated that, in Mr Troon’s case, I was satisfied that a compelling reason existed to justify the grant of bail and that I was not satisfied that he posed an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of others if released on bail.

In relation to Mr Thorne, I stated that I was not…

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 Troon

Details

AGLC: Re Troon [2024] VSC 607
Case: [2024] VSC 607
Decision Date: 1 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Two applicants, both co-accused facing multiple serious charges including home invasion, intentionally causing serious injury, reckless conduct endangering life, aggravated burglary with a firearm, armed robbery and common law assault, applied for bail in the County Court of Victoria. The applicants' respective bail applications were heard together by the court. The primary issues for the court's determination were whether there was a compelling reason for granting bail to each applicant, and whether granting bail would present an unacceptable risk of reoffending.

The court considered the delay in the prosecution case and its strength, which were relevant to both applicants. In respect of the first applicant, the court found that there was a compelling reason for bail due to the applicant's family support, stable accommodation, and lack of criminal history. The court also found that the risk of reoffending if bail was granted was not unacceptable. Conversely, in respect of the second applicant, the court found that there was no compelling reason for bail due to the applicant's lengthy criminal history, limited supports available, and lack of appropriate accommodation. Additionally, the court found that the risk of reoffending if bail was granted was unacceptable.

Accordingly, the court granted bail to the first applicant and refused bail to the second applicant. The final orders of the court were that the first applicant be released on bail subject to certain conditions, and that the second applicant remain in custody awaiting trial.

Orders