Re Williams - [2022] VSC 712

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2022 0277

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

- and –

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by Benjamin WILLIAMS

---

JUDGE:	TINNEY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	11 November 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 November 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Williams
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 712

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Alleged armed robbery by 30-year-old applicant of his mother – No relevant criminal history – Compelling reason required to be demonstrated – Court Integrated Services Program support on offer – Respondent conceded it would be open to Court to find a compelling reason – Also conceded that risk posed could be ameliorated by the imposition of strict conditions – Compelling reason made out – Unacceptable risk not established – Bail granted – Bail Act 1977 ss 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E, 5AAAA.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms S Joosten	Barwon South West Lawyers
For the Respondent	Ms J Poole	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The applicant applied for bail on charges he faces of armed robbery, theft and common law assault. The alleged victim of the charges is the applicant’s mother, Michelle Williams.

It was agreed between the parties that the Court was required to refuse bail unless satisfied that a compelling reason exists that justifies the grant of bail. This is because the applicant is accused of a Schedule 2 offence within the meaning of the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’).[1]
[1]Armed robbery is an offence which is contained at item 22 of Schedule 2 of the Act.

Prior to the commencement of the application, the position of the respondent was that whilst it would be open to the Court to find that a compelling reason in justification of bail existed, bail was opposed on the basis of an unacceptable risk that the applicant would endanger the safety or welfare of any person, commit an offence while on bail, or interfere with a witness or otherwise obstruct the course of justice.

During the hearing of the application, Ms Poole, who appeared for the respondent, fairly and, in my view, correctly conceded that any risk posed by the applicant may be able to be ameliorated by the imposition of conditions such that it would not be unacceptable. Bail was formally opposed, but no strong opposition was advanced to a grant of bail.

In the circumstances, I was satisfied that the applicant had discharged the onus resting on him of satisfying the Court of a compelling reason, and that the respondent had not discharged the onus resting on him of proving an unacceptable risk. I therefore made a grant of bail to the applicant.

I indicated at the time that I would publish my reasons at a later time. These are those reasons.

Procedural history

The applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on 2…

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 Williams

Details

AGLC: Re Williams [2022] VSC 712
Case: [2022] VSC 712
Decision Date: 22 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Re Williams was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the applicant, a 30-year-old man, sought bail in relation to an alleged armed robbery of his mother. The respondent, representing the state, opposed the application on the grounds that the applicant posed an unacceptable risk to the community. The case required the court to determine whether the applicant's right to liberty, as enshrined in the Bail Act 1977, could be balanced against the need to protect the community from the risk he posed. The court was also tasked with assessing whether a compelling reason existed to grant bail and, if so, what conditions could be imposed to mitigate any risk.

The court began by examining the relevant provisions of the Bail Act 1977, specifically sections 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E, and 5AAAA. It considered the applicant's lack of a criminal history and the presence of a compelling reason to be demonstrated for the grant of bail, as well as the availability of the Court Integrated Services Program support. The court also noted the respondent's concession that it would be open to the court to find a compelling reason and that the risk posed by the applicant could be sufficiently mitigated by the imposition of strict conditions. The court found that the applicant had established a compelling reason for bail, and that an unacceptable risk to the community had not been demonstrated.

Accordingly, the court granted the applicant bail, subject to strict conditions. These included residence at a specified address, the surrender of all passports and travel documents, and the imposition of a curfew. The court was satisfied that these conditions would sufficiently mitigate any risk posed by the applicant while allowing him to prepare for his upcoming trial. The court further directed that the applicant participate in the Court Integrated Services Program to assist with any underlying issues that may have contributed to his alleged offending behaviour.

The final orders of the court were that the applicant be released on bail, subject to the aforementioned conditions. The court also directed that the applicant attend a bail review hearing within seven days of the grant of bail to ensure compliance with the conditions. The applicant was further ordered to appear before the court on the specified trial date. The respondent was directed to provide the applicant with a copy of the bail conditions and to ensure that any necessary support services were made available to him.

Orders