Re Velluto - [2020] VSC 188

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2020 0055

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by ANTHONY VELLUTO

---

JUDGE:	TINNEY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 April 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 April 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Velluto
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 188

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Dishonesty and other offending – Allegedly committed whilst on bail – Significant criminal history showing poor compliance with court orders – Drug problem - Delay and other COVID-19 considerations – Exceptional circumstances not established – Unacceptable risk – Bail refused – Bail Act 1977 ss 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4AA, 4A, 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr D Rofe	Chester Metcalfe & Co
For the Respondent	Mr J Kibel	Legal Services Department, Victoria Police

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Anthony Velluto, the applicant, applies for bail in respect of a number of charges he faces in respect of offences of dishonesty and other offending. There are two separate groups of charges laid by separate informants, Detective Senior Constable Westlake, and First Constable Jory. There are charges of theft of and from motor vehicles, many charges of handling stolen goods, drug offences, and offences under the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’).

The parties agree that bail must be refused unless the applicant can satisfy the Court that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail. This is because the applicant is accused of committing a Schedule 2 offence whilst on bail for another Schedule 2 offence.

Procedural history

The applicant has been in custody since his arrest for the Informant Jory matters on 20 January 2020. He was refused bail in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 25 March 2020, on the basis that he had failed to demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances. In addition, he was found to be an unacceptable risk of committing an offence while on bail and failing to surrender into custody in accordance with conditions of bail.

Both the Westlake and Jory matters are next listed in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court for contest mention on 28 April 2020.

The applicant also faces charges for outstanding matters on which he was previously released on bail or charged under summons. These matters were laid by Senior Constable McDonald and Constable Terzi.

The alleged offending
Informant Westlake

In March 2019, police commenced an investigation into a factory located at 12B Bailey Avenue, Keilor East, suspected of being utilised in vehicle theft activities.

On 2 July 2019, police executed a search warrant at the factory premises while the applicant was present. A grey Mitsubishi Lancer that appeared to be undergoing repairs was seized. Forensic examinations revealed that the vehicle’s identification number had been altered and that its correct identification number matched that of a Mitsubishi that was reported stolen from Roxburgh Park on 28 April 2016.

On 11 November 2019, a grey Volkswagen Amarok was…

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 Velluto

Details

AGLC: Re Velluto [2020] VSC 188
Case: [2020] VSC 188
Decision Date: 20 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re Velluto, the appellant sought bail in relation to charges of dishonesty and other criminal conduct. The matter was before the court due to the appellant's alleged commission of new offences while already on bail. Velluto had a substantial criminal history marked by non-compliance with court orders and ongoing drug issues. The court had to consider these factors alongside the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused delays and other disruptions. The central legal issues revolved around whether exceptional circumstances existed to warrant bail and whether the risk posed by the appellant was acceptable under the Bail Act 1977.

The court meticulously examined Velluto's criminal history, highlighting a pattern of dishonesty and a failure to adhere to bail conditions. Given the new allegations, the court concluded that exceptional circumstances had not been demonstrated. Additionally, the appellant's drug dependency and associated risks were deemed significant, further supporting the refusal of bail. The potential for unacceptable risk to the community, combined with the appellant's poor track record, led the court to find that the interests of justice did not favour granting bail. The court's decision was informed by the principles outlined in the Bail Act 1977, particularly sections 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4AA, 4A, and 4E.

Consequently, the court refused bail to Velluto, finding that the risk to the community was unacceptable given the appellant's criminal history and the new allegations. The court's reasoning focused on the balance between the appellant's rights and the need to protect the community. The decision underscored the importance of compliance with court orders and the potential consequences of continued criminal activity. No exceptional circumstances were identified that would warrant a departure from the usual approach to bail refusal in such cases. The court's final orders were that bail be refused to the appellant, with the case remaining under the jurisdiction of the court pending further proceedings.

Orders