Romas v Director of Public Prosecutions
[2014] VSC 499
•3 October 2014
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S CR 2014 0120
IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by STEVEN ROMAS
---
JUDGE: | COGHLAN J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 17 September 2014 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 3 October 2014 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Romas v DPP |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2014] VSC 499 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Application for bail – Application refused
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant | Mr C Dane QC | Defteros Lawyers |
| For the Crown | Mr T S Hoare | Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
HIS HONOUR:
Steven Romas makes application for bail by Notice dated 22 August 2014. He has been committed for trial on two sets of charges, one set involving complainant ST and the other involving the complainant MG.
With respect to ST, he has been charged with intentionally and recklessly causing serious injury, intentionally and recklessly causing injury, attempted rape, false imprisonment and making threats to kill. All these offences are said to have been committed on 31 September 2013.
The applicant was arrested and charged with the above offences on 25 September 2013. A bail application was refused by Reynolds M on 6 November 2013.
The applicant, who was required to show cause why his detention without bail was not justified, was refused bail. That was because it was alleged a weapon had been used in the offence.
It appears that he was refused bail principally because he had been refused admission to the Credit Bail Support Programme (“CISP”) and therefore failed to show cause and that he was in any event an unacceptable risk both of reoffending and interfering with prosecution witnesses.
On 20 November 2013, a second bail application was heard by Reynolds M, who granted bail. He had by then been found suitable for CISP and such other risks could be suitably ameliorated by appropriate conditions.
On 18 December 2013, the applicant was charged with 55 charges relating to complainant MG. These charges were two charges of rape alleged to have been committed on 2 December 2012, intentionally and recklessly causing injury, and unlawful arrest on 6 November 2013. The other 50 charges were all alleged contraventions of Family Violence Intervention Order between 23 May 2013 and 6 December 2013. The last two contraventions were made on 4 and 6 December 2013, that is after the applicant had been released on bail. The conduct alleged to have been committed contravened the Order, involving the making of more than 300 telephone calls. He appears to have made one telephone call whilst in custody on 20 October 2013 and one call on each of two occasions after his release on bail, ie 2 and 5 December respectively.
The latter offending would constitute offending whilst on bail. From something said on the bail application it would seem the applicant asserts that these two calls related to some property of his wife that had been interfered with or gone missing whilst he was in custody.
On 20 December 2013, a successful application was made to revoke the applicant’s bail because of the further charges. A fresh application was made for bail. The applicant was then in a show cause situation for both sets of charges. The first because it was alleged a weapon had been used and the second because he had offended whilst on bail with respect to the last two charges.
It was also alleged that the applicant had breached a condition of his bail by not residing at the stated address.
Bail was refused because the applicant had failed to show cause and because there was a risk of reoffending, interfering with witnesses and because he was a risk to the safety and welfare of the public.
A further application was made on 21 February 2014 and on 19 March 2014 it was refused.
On 23 June 2013 the applicant was committed for trial on all charges.
On 5 August 2014 a bail application was made in the County Court before his Honour Judge Meredith.
By the time that application was made the third date of 25 May 2015 had been fixed with a final direction date of 10 April 2015.
It appears that at that application the opposition to bail was based upon unacceptable risk rather than failure to show cause.
I observed in argument and I repeat here that the fact that the applicant would be detained for 19 out of 20 months prior to trial, taken with the fact that the applicant has both accommodation and work available to him, would be sufficient to satisfy me that the applicant had shown cause.
Mr Dane of Her Majesty’s counsel, who appeared for the applicant, rightly submitted that the case would turn on whether or not the respondent has satisfied me that the applicant is an unacceptable risk.
There are three aspects of unacceptable risk pursuant to s 4(2(a) to be considered for present purposes:
(a) commiting an offence whilst on bail;
(b) endangering the safety or welfare of members of the public; and
(c) interfering with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice on any other person.
The alleged offending arises out of the relationships with the applicant. It seems fair to say that what were at one stage reasonable relationships eventually collapsed and led to the conduct alleged in the charges.
The matter of major concern is the applicant’s attitude to the witness MB.
On 26 June 2014 MB reported to police that shortly after his release from prison on 21 June 2014 one Assifiri had attended her home and told her that he had been told to stand over her by the applicant to convince her to withdraw her statement. Although the reading of her statement would lead to the conclusion that the ‘threats’ were expressed in somewhat oblique terms, she regarded herself as threatened. In at least one phone call the applicant is alleged to have said to MB — in response to her saying ‘I don’t know what I have to do’ — ‘When you speak to Michael I’m sure he will tell you what to do’. In another call the applicant appears to be making attempts to find out MB’s exact address.
I am prepared to accept that there are a number of matters relating to property as between the parties which are yet to be resolved but it is not unfair to say that it appears that the applicant and his family hold strong views about these matters.
It should be noted that in relation to MB part of the allegations involves 50 breaches of a Family Violence Intervention Order and the applicant’s brief criminal history shows a disregard of court orders.
I have had regard to the report filed by Dr Danny Sullivan and I would not draw sufficient solace from it in support of the applicant to reduce his risk of reoffending and interfering with witnesses.
I am satisfied that there is unacceptable risk of interfering with witnesses and reoffending whilst on bail.
The order of the Court is that bail will be refused.
0
0
0