Venditti v The Queen - [2008] VSC 604

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1516 of 2001

Angelo Mario VENDITTI	Applicant
v
The QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	BONGIORNO J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 December 2008
DATE OF RULING:	17 December 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Venditti v The Queen
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 604

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Bail — Exceptional circumstances — Delay before committal and trial — Extreme conditions of incarceration — Weakness of the Crown case — Combination of circumstances — s 13(2)(b), Bail Act 1977

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr S Shirrefs SC	Dean Cole and Associates
For the Respondent	Ms G Cannon	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Angelo Venditti was arrested on 29 July 2008 and charged with the murder of Paul Kallipolitis at West Sunshine on 12 October 2002. This was the second time he had been arrested in relation to this matter, the first being in July 2008 when he was interrogated and released without charge.

The Crown case against Venditti is that Kallipolitis was actually killed by one Andrew Veniamin who shot him a number of times with a weapon which has not been found. When he did so he was accompanied by another man who is implicated in the murder. The Crown alleges that the applicant contracted with Veniamin and the other man to kill Kallipolitis for a fee.

The Crown says that in about August of 2002 the deceased became involved in a dispute involving the applicant concerning a car yard in South Melbourne. The dispute arose over the alleged failure of a customer to pay for cars that he had bought. A complex series of transactions eventually resulted in the deceased being involved in collecting or attempting to collect outstanding debts from the applicant. These events are said by the Crown to have led to animosity between the deceased and the applicant.

On 26 and 27 September 2002, the deceased sent the applicant three text messages which, the Crown says, demonstrate the existence of that animosity. Two were abusive and one was apologetic. It should be observed at this point that the interpretation the Crown contends for is by no means compelled by the words used in those messages although that interpretation may well be open.

The Crown case is that shortly after this the applicant tried to get in touch with Veniamin a number of times and eventually had a meeting with him somewhere in St Kilda at about 5:50 pm on 9 October 2002. There, says the Crown, Veniamin and the other man were contracted to murder Kallipolitis. That murder appears to have been carried out about 10:00 pm three days later, on 12 October. The extent to which the inferences relied upon by the Crown to prove these facts are properly available may well be a matter of argument at committal and/or trial.

The applicant has now been in custody since 29 July and applies for bail…

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 Venditti v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Venditti v The Queen [2008] VSC 604
Case: [2008] VSC 604
Decision Date: 17 December 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Venditti v The Queen was a case heard in the High Court of Australia. The respondent, the Crown, appealed against the decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had granted the applicant bail on the basis of exceptional circumstances. The applicant, Venditti, had been charged with serious criminal offences and had been in custody for an extended period. The case centred on the interpretation and application of section 13(2)(b) of the Bail Act 1977, which allows for the granting of bail if there are exceptional circumstances that make it just and equitable to do so.

The legal issues before the High Court involved whether the Supreme Court was correct in finding that there were exceptional circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The Court had to consider the meaning of "exceptional circumstances" in the context of section 13(2)(b) of the Bail Act, and whether the combination of factors present in this case, including the delay before committal and trial, extreme conditions of incarceration, and the weakness of the Crown's case, justified the grant of bail. The Crown argued that the Supreme Court had misapplied the statutory criteria, while Venditti maintained that the combination of factors constituted exceptional circumstances.

The High Court held that the Supreme Court had correctly identified that the combination of factors amounted to exceptional circumstances. The Court noted that while each individual factor may not have been sufficient on its own, the cumulative effect warranted the grant of bail. The Court emphasised that the decision to grant bail in exceptional circumstances must be based on the specific facts of each case, and that the discretion provided by section 13(2)(b) of the Bail Act must be exercised judiciously. The Court found that the Supreme Court had appropriately considered the relevant factors and exercised its discretion in a manner consistent with the statutory framework.

The final orders of the High Court were to dismiss the appeal by the Crown and affirm the decision of the Supreme Court that exceptional circumstances did exist, justifying the grant of bail to Venditti. The Court emphasised the importance of ensuring that bail decisions are made in accordance with the statutory criteria and in the interests of justice.

Orders