This is a case study on a bail application for aggravated burglary and intentionally causing serious injury involving a First Nations person charged with serious violent offences.
What was alleged to have occurred?
The allegations against our client include entering the complainant’s home, assaulting the complainant, and then taking the complainant’s property.
At the time of the bail application, our client had been in custody for several months. Prior to engaging Doogue + George, our client was refused bail because the Court was not satisfied that the relevant bail test had been met.
What happened at Court?
We identified a recent and relevant change in the bail laws which meant our client could reapply for bail, and that the specific rules applying to the bail application had changed.
There are three different bail thresholds set out in the Bail Act – the exceptional circumstances test, the show compelling reason test, and the prima facie right to bail. Which threshold applies depends on the specific offences a person has been charged with. In this case, we were required to show compelling reasons as to why our client should be granted bail.
In preparing for the bail application, we organised for our client to be assessed by CISP (the Court Integrated Services Program, which is a bail support service), got in touch with our client’s case worker to confirm the supports that would be available on release, confirmed housing was available, and collated relevant material to present to the Court.
The prosecution opposed bail on the basis of unacceptable risk. The Bail Act requires that, even if the show compelling reasons test can be satisfied, the Court must refuse bail if there is an unacceptable risk that the person applying for bail would endanger the safety or welfare of any other person, interfere with a witness or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, or fail to answer bail. The prosecution case was that our client posed an unacceptable risk if granted bail.
In the bail application, we cross-examined the police informant about the level of risk posed by our client. We also made submissions about the compelling reasons in this case, and about managing any risk on bail through crafting appropriate conditions. In doing so, we utilised the Bugmy Bar Book, a comprehensive collection of research about different issues faced by many people involved in the criminal justice system. This helped our lawyer to support our submissions about the particular considerations that Magistrates must have in relation to First Nations people applying for bail.
What was the result?
The bail application for aggravated burglary and intentionally causing serious injury was successful. The Magistrate ultimately granted bail finding the relevant threshold met and refusing to accept the prosecution’s submissions about the risk posed by our client. The Magistrate imposed bail conditions including regular reporting to police, compliance with CISP, and a static residential address.
The matter was then adjourned to a committal mention hearing. Not only does a grant of bail mean that our client was released from custody and able to return home; but with our client on bail, the task of preparing for Court becomes far easier.
Maya George
Maya is based in our Melbourne office and has experience in a wide range of criminal matters. Formerly a Judge's associate in the Criminal Division of the County Court, she has practised exclusively in criminal defence and believes every person accused of wrongdoing deserves strong and capable representation.Maya appears regularly in Court on behalf of clients charged with summary and indictable offences. In preparing each matter, Maya prioritises diligence, a non-judgmental approach, and providing clear and honest advice to her clients.
View Maya George's profile.
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 11/11/2024
