Re Vucak - [2009] VSC 167

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1441 of 2009

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by ANTE VUCAK

ANTE VUCAK	Applicant
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	KAYE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 April 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	27 April 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	In the Matter of an application for bail by Ante Vucak
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 167

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Murder, attempted murder and affray – Whether exceptional circumstances – Youth of applicant – Applicant held in adult prison – Delay – Parity with co-accused – Gravity of charges – Bail Act 1977 ss 4(3), 13.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr P Morrissey	Mr P Dwyer
For the Crown	Mr A Grant	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

The applicant, Ante Vucak, has been charged with one count of murder, one count of attempted murder and one count of affray. Those offences are alleged to have been committed on 8 February 2009 at Diggers Rest Recreational Reserve.

The applicant is 18 years of age. He is one of nine young men, whose ages range from 15 to 20 years, who have been charged with those offences.

The applicant applies to this court for bail. Section 4(3) and s.13 of the Bail Act require that the applicant satisfy me that there are exceptional circumstances which would justify the grant of bail.

The Crown opposes bail primarily on the grounds that exceptional circumstances have not been established. In addition, it is put that there is an unacceptable risk that the applicant, if released on bail, would fail to surrender himself into custody in answer to his bail.

The circumstances of the offences for which the applicant has been charged have been set out in some detail in the helpful summary compiled by Detective Senior Constable Chapman, who is the informant in this matter. For the purposes of this application, they can be briefly summarised.

Some time before 8 February Kyle Nunan, who is 16 years of age and who is the younger brother of the deceased man Nathan Roberts-Nunan, was apparently involved in an altercation with an associate of a friend of the applicant. One week before 8 February, the applicant contacted Kyle Nunan via the internet, and arranged to meet with him and have a fist fight with him at Diggers Rest skate park on 8 February. They agreed that no weapons would be brought to, or used, at the fight. Notwithstanding that agreement, in the meantime the applicant recruited and organised that his co-accused attend at the reserve with him.

On 8 February, the applicant and his co-accused assembled at an address at St Albans. At that address, there were a large number of weapons assembled, including knives, machetes, baseball bats, tool handles and other steel implements. In addition, the applicant and another co-accused had prepared…

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 Vucak

Details

AGLC: Re Vucak [2009] VSC 167
Case: [2009] VSC 167
Decision Date: 27 April 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re Vucak, the applicant, Vucak, applied to the Court for bail in relation to charges of murder, attempted murder and affray. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Vucak sought release on bail pending the determination of his criminal proceedings, asserting that he would not commit an offence if granted bail. The prosecution opposed the bail application, arguing that the nature and seriousness of the charges, the potential risk to the community, and the failure to appear at trial warranted denial of bail.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether exceptional circumstances existed that would warrant the grant of bail to Vucak. This involved consideration of the youth of the applicant, the fact that he had been held in an adult prison, the delay in the proceedings, and the need for parity with co-accused individuals. The court was required to balance these factors against the gravity of the charges and the potential risk to the community if Vucak were to be released on bail.

The court examined the provisions of the Bail Act 1977, particularly sections 4(3) and 13. It considered the exceptional circumstances provision, the youth of Vucak, and the potential impact of his continued detention in an adult prison. The court noted the significant delay in the proceedings and the need for parity with co-accused individuals. However, the court ultimately found that the gravity of the charges and the potential risk to the community outweighed the other factors. Consequently, the court denied the application for bail.

No orders were made in relation to the bail application.

Orders