APPLICANT WITH VARIOUS PRIOR CONVICTIONS OF ROBBERY APPLIES FOR BAIL FOR THE SAME OFFENCE
Re Kur [2021] VSC 285 (20 May 2021)
This is an application for bail by a 21-year-old applicant charged with robbery. The applicant here has a serious criminal history including many prior convictions for robbery and a poor history of compliance with bail.
Facts:
The applicant applied for bail on a charge he faces of robbery, arising from an incident which took place in Kings Park on 28 September 2019. The applicant was 19 years old at the time of the events and 21 years old by the time of this application. He had offended in company with AM and Joshua Horton (‘Horton’).
At 2:30pm, brothers Maaka, aged 17, and Nathaniel, aged 18, arrived at a bus stop at the intersection of Main Road West and Oakwood Road, Kings Park, on their way to the local gymnasium. Nathaniel was wearing a ‘Philadelphia 76ers’ peaked cap.
The RAV4 pulled over just past the bus stop, at which point AM and the applicant allegedly exited from the rear of the vehicle and spoke to the brothers. During this exchange, the applicant asked for Nathaniel’s cap. When he refused, the applicant tried to grab the cap but Nathaniel held onto it, causing the applicant to punch him in the face. At the same time, AM allegedly struck Maaka and a fight ensued.
During the fight, the applicant was knocked to the ground, at which time it is alleged that Horton got out of the rear of the RAV4 armed with a knife. Horton approached Maaka, who was struggling with the applicant, and stabbed him to the abdomen, piercing his heart. Soon after, Maaka collapsed to the ground and lost consciousness.
The applicant and Kur then ran towards the RAV4, with the applicant taking the peaked cap from Hakiwai as he went by. Having stabbed Nathaniel a second time, again to his left thigh, Horton also returned to the RAV4, which was driven away. A passing motorist who witnessed the fight followed the RAV4 for a short distance and noted the vehicle’s registration number.
Maaka was transported to Royal Melbourne Hospital but never regained consciousness and died later that day. Nathaniel was transported to The Alfred Hospital for emergency treatment for his injuries.
Issue: Should the applicant be granted bail?
Law:
Analysis:
The applicant’s criminal record is a serious one, commencing in April 2018 when he was 18 years old and spanning some five appearances in the Children’s Court and various Magistrates’ Courts. The applicant has accrued no fewer than 7 findings of guilt for robbery, and also convictions or findings of guilt for affray on two occasions, and other crimes of violence. The history shows a very poor record of compliance with grants of bail, including ten convictions for committing an indictable offense whilst on bail and three for contravening conduct conditions of bail.
The seriousness of the offending is aggravated by the important fact that the applicant was on parole at the time in respect of earlier offenses including six charges of robbery, two charges of affray, a charge of intentionally causing injury, and seven charges of committing an indictable offense whilst on bail. Where bail is concerned, the status of the applicant as a parolee is specifically required to be factored into the surrounding circumstances.
Looked at more broadly, the criminal history of the applicant is an important consideration pointing against a grant of bail in this case. The submission by Mr Gibson that the applicant has shown an established pattern of committing crimes of robbery sits comfortably enough with his criminal record, his status as a parolee in respect of crimes of robbery, and the offense with which this application is concerned.
The bail history of the applicant is poor, and made no less so by the absence of convictions for failing to answer bail. He has, over the relatively short time of his criminal history, shown a lack of respect for the strictures of bail. Furthermore, his act in leaving Victoria in the immediate aftermath of his crime, and the broader events surrounding that crime, is, to my mind, a telling matter highlighting the risk he would pose, if released on bail, of not answering bail.
Conclusion: For that reason, bail is hereby refused.
