Re Wills - [2024] VSC 168

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2024 0064

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977
and
IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by TYLER WILLS	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	KAYE JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5 April 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	9 April 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Wills
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 168

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Applicant charged with reckless conduct endangering serious injury, recklessly causing injury, unlawful imprisonment, contravention of family violence prevention orders and dangerous driving – Whether compelling reason established – Whether unacceptable risk of endangering safety or welfare of others and of interfering with witnesses.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr J. Penny	RA Criminal Lawyers
For the Respondent	Senior Sergeant G. Carr	Legal Practice Group, Victoria Police

HIS HONOUR:

On 16 January 2024, the applicant was arrested and charged with a number of offences that include: reckless conduct endangering serious injury (two charges); recklessly causing injury; unlawful imprisonment (two charges); contravening a family violence prevention order (two charges); unlawful assault of a female (four charges); unlawful assault (two charges); unlawful damage of property; and theft. In addition, he was also charged with four road traffic offences.

On 26 February 2024, the applicant made an application for bail to the Frankston Magistrates’ Court. The application was refused on the ground that the applicant had failed to show a compelling reason justifying his release on bail, and further on the ground that, if released, the applicant would be an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of another person, and of interfering with a witness or otherwise obstructing the course of justice.

On 15 March 2024, the applicant made a further application for bail to the Frankston Magistrates’ Court. The application was refused on the basis that he had not demonstrated the existence of any new facts or circumstances.

The applicant now applies to this Court for bail.

Background circumstances

The charges against the applicant allege offending by him against AM,[1] with whom he had been in a relationship for a period of some nine months. During that period, they resided together at premises in [redacted]. The offences occurred on 16 January 2024. They constitute the first family violence incident between the applicant and AM.
[1]A pseudonym.

The alleged offending

The incidents which gave rise to the charges commenced late on 15 January 2024. At approximately 11:30 pm, AM and the applicant had a verbal argument, which escalated and became quite heated. In the course of the argument, the applicant took possession of AM’s telephone, and threatened to call her parents to disclose to them that she was a sex worker. AM seized the telephone and called the police. The applicant then took possession of the telephone and alleged to the police that the complainant had assaulted him. AM then attempted to leave the premises. The applicant followed her outside, picked her up and carried…

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 Wills

Details

AGLC: Re Wills [2024] VSC 168
Case: [2024] VSC 168
Decision Date: 9 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Wills involved an applicant charged with various offences including reckless conduct endangering serious injury, recklessly causing injury, unlawful imprisonment, contravention of family violence prevention orders, and dangerous driving. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the applicant sought bail. The central issue for the court was to determine if a compelling reason for granting bail existed, considering the risk of endangering the safety or welfare of others and the potential for interfering with witnesses.

The court examined the severity of the charges against the applicant and the nature of the alleged offending. It considered the potential risk to the community if bail was granted, including the possibility of the applicant reoffending or intimidating witnesses. The applicant's criminal history and any previous breaches of bail conditions were also weighed in the court's decision-making process. Additionally, the court assessed the likelihood of the applicant appearing at future court hearings if released on bail.

In reaching its decision, the court concluded that the risk to the safety and welfare of others, as well as the risk of interfering with witnesses, was too significant to warrant the granting of bail. The court found that the applicant's criminal conduct, particularly the violent nature of the charges, presented a substantial danger to the community. Furthermore, the court determined that the applicant's previous breaches of bail conditions and the potential for reoffending supported the denial of bail. Consequently, the application for bail was dismissed.

The court's final orders were that the applicant remain in custody pending the resolution of the charges against them. The court emphasized the need to protect the safety and welfare of the community and the potential witnesses involved in the case.

Orders