Re Villani - [2021] VSC 638

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2021 0241

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

- and -

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by DALLAN VILLANI

---

JUDGE:	Tinney J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	23 & 28 September 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 October 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Villani
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 638

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Two alleged sprees of dishonest offending, the second occurring whilst applicant on bail for first – 23-year-old offender with drug problem – Significant criminal history – Offending all drug related – Availability of residential drug treatment place at Odyssey House – Delay – COVID-19 – Strong family support – Surety available – Exceptional circumstances established – No unacceptable risk – Bail granted – Bail Act 1977 ss 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4AA, 4A, 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms R Avis	Leanne Warren & Associates
For the Respondent	Mr P Collins	Victoria Police Legal Practice Group

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The applicant applies for bail on a large number of charges laid in two separate groups by Detective Senior Constable Martin Salter, whom I will call the respondent.

The first group of charges (‘the first Salter matter’) are for offences allegedly committed between 29 April 2019 and 18 February 2021. The charges were laid on 18 February 2021, and are for theft of a motor vehicle (4 charges), obtaining property by deception (4 charges), handling stolen goods (4 charges) and possessing housebreaking implements.

The second group of charges (‘the second Salter matter’) are for offences allegedly committed between 1 and 3 March 2021. The charges were laid on 4 March 2021, and are for theft of a motor vehicle (4 charges), contravening a conduct condition of bail (2 charges), committing an indictable offence whilst on bail (2 charges), handling stolen goods (27 charges) and dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime (2 charges).

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 under the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’) whilst on bail for a Schedule 2 offence.[1]
[1]The Act, s 4AA(2)(c).

Chronology

Having been arrested and charged with the first Salter matter on 18 February 2021, the applicant was released on police bail with, inter alia, conditions requiring him to reside at 2/20 Royal Avenue Springvale and to remain at that address between the hours of 10.00pm and 6.00am.

The alleged offending the subject of the second Salter matter occurred within two weeks of his release on the above grant of bail.

The applicant was arrested on the second Salter matter on 3 March 2021 and then remanded in custody on 4 March 2021.

He made an application for bail on those charges on 1 September 2021. Bail 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 Villani

Details

AGLC: Re Villani [2021] VSC 638
Case: [2021] VSC 638
Decision Date: 1 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re Villani, the applicant faced the Court of Appeal in a bid to overturn a decision made by a lower court that had refused his application for bail. The applicant, already on bail for a series of dishonest offences, was accused of engaging in another spree of similar criminal activity. This individual, aged 23, had a substantial criminal history and a drug dependency issue. The primary legal issue for the court was to determine whether the applicant should be granted bail, considering his extensive criminal background, his drug problems, the nature of his alleged offences, and the exceptional circumstances arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and delays in the court process.

The Court of Appeal carefully weighed the relevant factors under the Bail Act 1977. It noted that the applicant had a significant criminal history, all of which was drug-related. However, it also recognised the availability of a residential drug treatment place at Odyssey House, the strong family support available to the applicant, and the presence of a surety. The court gave particular attention to the delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and considered these exceptional circumstances in their evaluation. The Court concluded that the applicant did not pose an unacceptable risk to the community and that granting bail was appropriate under the circumstances.

The reasoning of the Court of Appeal led to the conclusion that bail should be granted. It found that the applicant’s drug issues could be addressed through the available treatment programs and that the support from his family would aid in his rehabilitation. The court also acknowledged the impact of the pandemic and delays on the proceedings, deeming these exceptional circumstances that warranted bail. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower court's decision and ordering that the applicant be granted bail.

Orders