Re Yousuf - [2021] VSC 272

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2021 0060

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

-and-

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by WALID YOUSUF

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	9 April 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	9 April 2021
DATE OF REVISED REASONS:	18 May 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Yousuf
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 272

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Application for bail — Charges of armed robbery, assault and making threats to kill — Potential delay of two years – Applicant’s youth — Significant proposed family support and oversight from the Department of Corrections — Exceptional circumstances established — Unacceptable risk not demonstrated — Bail granted with conditions — Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E — Cases cited: R v Dixon [1975] 22 ACTR 13; Re Gaylor [2019] VSC 46; Byrne v DPP [2015] VSC 764; Re Elias [2020] VSC 502; Mae Loc Tran [2008] VSC 191; Robinson v The Queen [2015] VSCA 161.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms Caitlin Dwyer	Theo Magazis & Associates
For the Respondent	Mr Alexander Albert	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

This is an application for bail by Walid Yousuf (‘the applicant’). The applicant applies for bail for the matter where the informant is Senior Constable Wayne Attard (‘the Attard matter’). The charges in the Attard matter, which arise from alleged offending on 17 March 2020, are:

(a) Armed robbery;[1]
[1]Contrary to s 75A of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

(b) Commit indictable offence on bail;[2]
[2]Contrary to s 30B of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).

(c) Contravene a conduct condition of bail;[3]

(d) Make a threat to kill;[4] and

(e) Assault.[5]

[3]Contrary to s 30A of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).

[4]Contrary to s 20 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

[5]Contrary to s 31 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

The applicant is also the accused in seven other matters before the courts. These matters have all resolved to pleas of guilty. The applicant remains on bail for three of these matters and is on summons for the remaining four. The relevant charges in these matters are as follows:

The matter where the informant is First Constable Alanna Lander (‘the Lander matter’), where the applicant is on bail:

(a) Theft of petrol;[6]
[6]Contrary to s 74 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

(b) Drive an unregistered motor vehicle;[7]
[7]Contrary to s 7 of the Road Safety Act 1968 (Vic).

(c) Fraudulently use registration plate;[8]
[8]Contrary to s 72 of the Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic).

(d) Fraudulently use registration plate;[9]
[9]Contrary to s 72 of the Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic).

(e) Drive a motor vehicle in breach of permit by driving without an accompanying supervising driver;[10]

(f) Theft of petrol;[11] and

(g) Theft of petrol.[12]

[10]Contrary to r 47 of the Road Safety (Drivers) Regulations 2019

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 Yousuf

Details

AGLC: Re Yousuf [2021] VSC 272
Case: [2021] VSC 272
Decision Date: 9 April 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Yousuf, applied for bail in the County Court of Victoria, facing charges of armed robbery, assault, and making threats to kill. The court had to consider the potential delay in trial, the applicant’s youth, and the substantial family support and oversight proposed by the Department of Corrections. The court was tasked with determining whether exceptional circumstances justified bail despite the seriousness of the charges and the risk of delay.

The court examined whether exceptional circumstances existed to warrant bail, considering the seriousness of the charges, the risk of delay, and the applicant's prospects of successfully defending the charges. It assessed the risk of the applicant absconding, reoffending, or interfering with witnesses or the administration of justice. The court also evaluated the potential delay in the trial and its impact on the applicant’s ability to prepare a defence. Furthermore, the court considered the applicant's age and the support network provided by his family and the Department of Corrections.

The court found that exceptional circumstances were present due to the applicant's youth and the significant family support available to him. It concluded that the risk of the applicant absconding or reoffending was not unacceptably high, given the proposed conditions. The court was satisfied that the applicant’s prospects of successfully defending the charges were reasonable. Consequently, the court granted bail with conditions, taking into account the potential delay in the trial and the mitigating factors presented.

The court ordered that the applicant be released on bail with specified conditions, including regular check-ins with the Department of Corrections and adherence to a curfew. The applicant was also required to reside at a specified address and refrain from contacting certain individuals. The court emphasised that failure to comply with the bail conditions would result in the cancellation of bail and potential arrest.

Orders