This is a case study on applying for bail for Armed Robbery.
Armed robbery is a schedule 2 offence which means that we had to satisfy the magistrate hearing the bail application that ‘compelling circumstances’ existed as to why his remand in custody was not justified. ‘Compelling circumstances’ is a new expression which was introduced into the Bail Act 1977 in 2018.
The Supreme Court in Re Ceylan [2018] VSC 361 defined ‘compelling circumstances’ as something which is ‘forceful and convincing’. Factors that the court will normally have regard to include:
Our client has been charged with Armed Robbery and was represented by one of our lawyers (based at our Broadmeadows office) at a bail application hearing. This application was opposed by the Office of Public Prosecutions as they were concerned that the client posed a risk to the community given the seriousness and randomness of the alleged offending.
What happened at court?
We represented the client at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court in applying for bail for Armed Robbery. Overall, the charges involved are:
Like anything else, preparation is key to succeeding in bail applications. It is important to know the strengths and weaknesses of your case. We normally note them down in dot point because this gives us an idea of the types of questions that we should ask the Police Informant during cross-examination. It also helps us to make final submissions to the magistrate. Bail applications are normally wedged into the busy Mention list of a court and magistrates do not have time to hear long winded submissions.
In the matter, the client had the following points in his favour:
What was the result?
Ultimately, the client was granted bail with very strict conditions.
Elements of Armed Robbery:
Armed robbery is a schedule 2 offence which means that we had to satisfy the magistrate hearing the bail application that ‘compelling circumstances’ existed as to why his remand in custody was not justified. ‘Compelling circumstances’ is a new expression which was introduced into the Bail Act 1977 in 2018.
The Supreme Court in Re Ceylan [2018] VSC 361 defined ‘compelling circumstances’ as something which is ‘forceful and convincing’. Factors that the court will normally have regard to include:
- Delay in gathering evidence to support the charges
- Poor health of the accused or their dependants
- Support from drug and alcohol services
- Stable accommodation
- The availability of work
- Lack of evidence
- Youth
Our client has been charged with Armed Robbery and was represented by one of our lawyers (based at our Broadmeadows office) at a bail application hearing. This application was opposed by the Office of Public Prosecutions as they were concerned that the client posed a risk to the community given the seriousness and randomness of the alleged offending.
What happened at court?
We represented the client at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court in applying for bail for Armed Robbery. Overall, the charges involved are:
Like anything else, preparation is key to succeeding in bail applications. It is important to know the strengths and weaknesses of your case. We normally note them down in dot point because this gives us an idea of the types of questions that we should ask the Police Informant during cross-examination. It also helps us to make final submissions to the magistrate. Bail applications are normally wedged into the busy Mention list of a court and magistrates do not have time to hear long winded submissions.
In the matter, the client had the following points in his favour:
- He is young
- First time in custody
- Family support
- He will potentially spend more time on remand than what his overall sentence will be if he were to plead guilty
- Drug and alcohol treatment
- Accommodation
- Crisis support
- Acquired brain injury services
What was the result?
Ultimately, the client was granted bail with very strict conditions.
Elements of Armed Robbery:
- The accused committed any robbery.
- The accused, at the time of committing the robbery, had with them a firearm, imitation firearm, offensive weapon, explosive, or imitation explosive.
DISCLAIMER: This is a real case study of an actual case from our files. Details pertaining to the client have been changed to protect their privacy. The sentence imposed and the charge have not been altered. These case studies are published to demonstrate real outcomes and give an indication of possible tariffs in Court. We do not guarantee a similar case on these charges will get the same result. Please note that we post results at our discretion, therefore while many case studies are average results, others are notable for their exceptional outcomes. PUBLISHED 23/04/2019
