The Court: Melbourne Magistrates Court
The Lawyer: Kieran Burke
The Charges:
The Allegations:
The client was arrested after allegedly entering the home of his former partner, in breach of a current family violence intervention order. The prosecution alleges that the client broke into the property late at night, stole several items, including her mobile phone and made verbal threats to kill if the complainant was to contact the police.
The complainant left the property and alerted the neighbours, who contacted police shortly thereafter. The client was arrested nearby and found in possession of the stolen items. During the recorded interview, the client made partial admissions to the offences but denied making any threats.
Police refused bail and remanded him in custody. Following the client’s remand, he instructed our solicitor to make a formal bail application to the court. Our solicitor was advised that the prosecution would oppose the application.
At Court:
Our solicitor obtained instructions from the client and appeared at court for the bail application.
As the client was facing Schedule 2 offences, under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic), the onus was on him to show compelling reasons why bail should be granted.
The informant, a police officer, was called to give evidence. The informant believed that the client was an unacceptable risk of further offending and would likely interfere with police witnesses. The informant raised the client’s previous criminal history, the escalation of offending, including the burglary and threats and that the client had a complete disregard for intervention orders.
When a prosecution witness gives evidence at court, the defence has the right to cross-examine the witness. Our solicitor cross-examined the informant during the bail application hearing, and the informant conceded that the client had significant mental health issues and a very supportive family that could assist him.
Our solicitor submitted that the client had a supportive family. His mother had attended court and given evidence in the witness box, stating that she was willing to have him reside at her home and provide the court with a $10,000 surety.
The prosecutor and our solicitor made lengthy submissions during the bail application hearing. The prosecution argued that the client was an unacceptable risk, and our solicitor submitted that this risk could be mitigated if the client were to be released on bail, subject to the imposition of specific bail conditions.
The Outcome:
Following submissions by our solicitor in support of the application, bail was granted. This was subject to conditions relating to where the client was to reside. He was also required to surrender his passport, refrain from interfering with any prosecution witnesses, abide by a curfew, and report weekly to the police.
