Wife Opposes Husband's Application for Bail

Re Zayat [2021] VSC 454 (3 August 2021)

The applicant received charges for domestic violence against his wife and violation of intervention orders.  The wife asserts that he poses an unacceptable risk to her and their children due to his history with illicit drugs and previous charges.  The applicant applied for bail claiming that there are exceptional circumstances. 

Facts:

The applicant and his wife have been married for about 17 years.  They have three children. 

The applicant admitted that he began using methylamphetamine heavily in early 2020. 

When his relationship with his wife deteriorated, he started his plumbing business. 

In September 2020, the applicant was arrested in respect of dishonesty offences and released on bail, that matter is listed for a plea in September 2021. 

On 12 January 2021, the applicant yelled abusively at his wife asking for jewelry his mother gave her.  When she went to her workplace, the applicant followed and drove his car into the window near where the applicant was sitting.  When the applicant left, he picked up his youngest son from an Early Learning Centre. 

On 13 January 2021, the applicant was bailed and an intervention order was made against him in respect of his wife.  The intervention order prohibited him from contacting his wife and three children unless via text message, email or letter regarding childcare arrangements. 

This order was breached as he contacted his wife by phone 166 times.  On 25 February 2021, at Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court, the applicant received a sentence of 7 days’ imprisonment with 7 days of pre-sentence detention and a 15-month community corrections order.  On 28 March 2021, the applicant was arrested on the current charges and remanded in custody. 

The applicant applied for bail relying on the following: 

• First, delay; given COVID-19 backlogs, a trial on the current offences is unlikely to be held until 2023. 
• Second, residence; the applicant is able to reside with a friend who can provide close supervision. 
• Third, work; the applicant can resume his plumbing business. 
• Fourth, there is a surety; the applicant’s sister offers a surety of $3000. 
• Fifth, the time already spent in custody has provided a wakeup call to the applicant. 
• Sixth, the applicant is willing to abide by strict bail conditions. 
• Seventh, the applicant has been attending Narcotics Anonymous meetings whilst on remand. 
• Eighth, the applicant will have the support of CISP and;
• Ninth, the applicant also has the support of many friends

Issues:

I. Whether or not the applicant was able to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. 

II. Whether or not the applicant poses an unacceptable risk to commit further offences and endanger members of the community.

Applicable law:

Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E, 5AAAA, 5AAB - provides that an application for bail should be refused if there are no exceptional circumstances to grant it.

Analysis:

The domestic violence incident on 12 January has shown that the applicant is prepared to terrorize his wife in a public setting.  He spent a week in police cells before his court hearing on 25 February 2021, that should have been ‘a wakeup call’ over and above the making of the intervention order and the making of the CCO, but regrettably, less than a month later, he is alleged to have committed another serious episode of domestic violence against his wife, this time in the presence of his three young boys.

He had been using illicit drugs on a daily basis for 18 months prior to his incarceration.  The longstanding and deep-seated nature of his illicit substance abuse compounds the risk of him committing further offences against his wife and children if released on bail.

Conclusion:

The Court refused the application for bail, having found that exceptional circumstances were not established and that, in any event, the applicant was an unacceptable risk of committing further offences.