Re Ts - [2024] VSC 164

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2024 0068

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by TS

---

JUDGE:	BEACH JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5 April 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	5 April 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re TS
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 164

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Sixteen year old child applicant charged with intentionally causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence and other offences – Applicant accused of Schedule 2 offence – Requirement to show compelling reason justifying grant of bail – Whether compelling reason established – Whether unacceptable risk of endangering safety or welfare of any person, or interfering with witnesses – Compelling reason test made out – Risk of endangering safety or welfare of other persons – Risk not shown to be unacceptable in circumstances – Bail granted on stringent conditions – Bail Act 1977, ss 3AAA, 3B, 4AA, 4C and 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr C Tom	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Respondent	Mr J Sheppard	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

The applicant is a 16 year old child[1] who has no prior convictions. On 20 March 2024, he was arrested and charged with ten offences: one charge of intentionally causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence (charge 1); one charge of intentionally causing serious injury (charge 2); one charge of intentionally causing injury (charge 3); one charge of affray (charge 4); one charge of assault with a weapon (charge 5); one charge of unlawful assault (charge 6); one charge of using a controlled weapon (charge 7); two charges of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail (charges 8 and 10); and one charge of theft (charge 9).
[1]He turns 17 in June of this year.

Following his arrest, the applicant was remanded in custody. An application for bail, made in the Children’s Court, was refused on 28 March 2024.

The applicant now applies for bail in this Court. Because he is accused of a Schedule 2 offence,[2] ss 4AA(3) and 4C(1A) of the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’) require this Court to refuse bail unless satisfied that a compelling reason exists that justifies the grant of bail.
[2]Intentionally causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence and intentionally causing serious injury are Schedule 2 offences (see items 4 and 6 of Schedule 2 of the Bail Act 1977).

The alleged offending

Charges 1 to 8 are alleged to have occurred on 17 February 2024. Charges 9 and 10 are alleged to have occurred 11 days later on 28 February 2024.

The Crown allege that, at approximately 5:00 pm on 17 February 2024, the victim of the offending alleged to occur on that day and an unknown male approached a vehicle in which the applicant and three co-accused had been travelling. The applicant and his co-accused got out…

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 Ts

Details

AGLC: Re Ts [2024] VSC 164
Case: [2024] VSC 164
Decision Date: 5 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Ts involved a sixteen-year-old applicant who was charged with several serious offences, including intentionally causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence. The applicant was accused of a Schedule 2 offence, which necessitated the demonstration of compelling reasons to justify the grant of bail. The legal issues before the court encompassed whether the applicant had established compelling reasons warranting bail and whether there was an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of any person or interfering with witnesses.

The court deliberated on the compelling reasons test and whether the applicant had satisfied it. Additionally, the court examined the risk of endangering the safety or welfare of other persons and whether this risk was shown to be unacceptable. The applicant's arguments were considered in light of the provisions of the Bail Act 1977, specifically sections 3AAA, 3B, 4AA, 4C, and 4E. The court concluded that the compelling reasons test was met and that the risk of endangering the safety or welfare of other persons was not shown to be unacceptable given the circumstances.

Upon finding that compelling reasons were demonstrated and the risk was not unacceptable, the court granted bail to the applicant. However, the bail was subject to stringent conditions aimed at mitigating the identified risks. These conditions were designed to ensure the applicant's compliance and to safeguard the community and witnesses. The final orders included specific terms and conditions that the applicant had to adhere to during the period of bail.

Orders