Re Wells - [2008] VSC 29

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1423 of 2007

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for bail by TROY GRANT WELLS

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 February 2008
DATE OF RULING:	14 February 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Troy Grant Wells
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 29

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Exceptional circumstances – Application for bail granted.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr G. Georgiou	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Crown	Mr R. Gibson	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

The applicant, Troy Grant Wells, applies for bail pursuant to the provisions of the Bail Act 1997 (Vic) (“the Act”).

Mr Wells is presently in custody at the Metropolitan Remand Centre. On 4 January 2007, he was charged with murder being that at Lilydale on 28 December 2006 he murdered Joshua John Wells, the six-week-old child of his relationship with

Ms Natalie Dunn. He has been in custody since 4 January 2007.

On 13 February 2007 King J, in this Court, refused an application for bail. On 29 October 2007, in the Magistrates’ Court before his Honour Magistrate Gurvich, a committal was conducted. At the conclusion of that hearing another bail application was made which his Honour refused.

On 12 November 2007, Teague J, in this Court, fixed 11 August 2008 as a date for the trial to commence, with a directions hearing to be listed on 5 February 2008. That directions hearing was held before Cummins J and Mr Wells was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the count of murder. In the course of that mention there was discussion about the prospect of the Crown obtaining further medical evidence. There is some risk that the obtaining and assessment of that evidence will cause a delay to the starting date of the trial, but that remains to be seen. I am acting on the basis that the trial will commence on 11 August 2008.

The application for bail is supported by an affidavit sworn on 18 December 2007 by Mr John Bentleigh, solicitor, of Victoria Legal Aid. The application is opposed by the Crown and an affidavit has been sworn by Ms Elissa Joanne Watson from the Office of Public Prosecutions on 7 January 2008.

Mr Wells is charged with murder and therefore must demonstrate “exceptional circumstances” pursuant to s 4(2) of the Act.

Exceptional Circumstances

A combination of factors can amount to exceptional circumstances. In this case the following factors are raised as being capable of amounting to exceptional circumstances:

1.The asserted weakness of the Crown case;
2.The applicant’s current psychological condition;
3.The applicant’s relative youth;
4.The lack of any prior offending;
5.Strong family support;
6.Employment prospects;
7.Strong ties to the jurisdiction.

In Moloney,[1] Vincent J said:

A number of decisions which have been handed down by judges in this Court, however, make it clear…

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 Wells

Details

AGLC: Re Wells [2008] VSC 29
Case: [2008] VSC 29
Decision Date: 14 February 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Wells involved an application for bail in the context of criminal proceedings. The applicant, Mr. Wells, faced charges under the criminal law of Australia and was seeking release on bail pending the resolution of his case. The application was heard in a court of appropriate jurisdiction, likely the Magistrates’ Court or a higher court, given the nature of the criminal charges.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the exceptional circumstances exception applied, which would allow for bail to be granted despite the seriousness of the charges. This exception requires the court to consider whether the applicant meets the criteria set out in the relevant bail legislation and whether there are exceptional circumstances that warrant a departure from the usual bail considerations. The court had to weigh the interests of justice, the risk of the accused failing to appear in court, and the potential impact on the community if bail were granted.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both the prosecution and the defence. The court found that the exceptional circumstances exception did apply, primarily based on the applicant's personal circumstances and the nature of the charges. The court concluded that granting bail would not pose an unacceptable risk to the community and that it was in the interests of justice to allow the applicant's release pending trial. The court was satisfied that the applicant would comply with any bail conditions imposed.

As a result of the court's decision, the application for bail was granted. The final orders included specific bail conditions that the applicant was required to adhere to, ensuring his appearance in court and minimising any potential risk to the community.

Orders