Applying for Bail for Armed Robbery

Armed RobberyThis is a case study on applying for bail for Armed Robbery.

Our client has been charged with Armed Robbery and was represented by Tyson Manicolo (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.

Armed robbery is a schedule 2 offence which means that Tyson 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

Tyson Manicolo 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. Tyson normally notes them down in dot point because this gives him an idea of the types of questions that he should ask the Police Informant during cross-examination. It also helps him 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

The major point in our client’s favour was that he had support from the Court Integrated Service Program (CISP). Before listing the bail application, another Doogue + George lawyer, Sam Cooper, organised for a CISP assessment to take place. This is important because CISP support can be the difference between bail and no bail. CISP have offices in most courts and their role is to provide support and referrals to:

  • Drug and alcohol treatment
  • Accommodation
  • Crisis support
  • Acquired brain injury services

In applying for bail for Armed Robbery, Tyson also called the client’s mother to give evidence as to the support she is able to offer. This was crucial especially that the magistrate originally raised some concerns about releasing the client on bail. 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.

 
Other related case studies:

 


Tyson ManicoloTyson Manicolo

Tyson is part of our Broadmeadows team and provides legal representation to clients facing charges in the Magistrates' and Children's Courts of Victoria. He is experienced at providing criminal defence against both summary and indictable crimes as well as in instructing Counsel. Tyson holds multiple degrees in Bachelor of Legal Studies, Bachelor of Law, and a Graduate Diploma of Legal Practice.

Admitted to practice in 2016, Tyson has a passion for advocacy and takes pride in helping people understand the law. He ensures that clients are given sound legal advice, a fair trial, and a strategic defence that will lead to the best possible outcome in court.

Know more about Tyson by visiting his profile here.
 


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