IN THE MAGISTRATE’s COURT 

IN THE STATE OF VICTORIA 

AT MELBOURNE 
 
Court Reference:  SBN123
 
IN THE MATTER OF the Bail Act 1977, 
IN THE MATTER of an application for Bail by Morris 
 

BETWEEN 
 
VICTORIA POLICE                                                 Applicant 

-And- 

MORRIS                                 Accused
 
 

Charges for which the applicant seeks bail.

Details Charges and dates of the alleged offending Bail status
Informant: Causing injury intentionally or recklessly pursuant On remand
to s 18 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s23 Common
Assault, s18 Causing Intentionally and recklessly,
s13 Persons Found Drunk and s9 Willful
destruction, damage etc. of property at 10:30 am
on Thursday, April.

 
BACKGROUND 
1. On 10:30 am on Thursday, April, the accused was arrested for causing injury
intentionally or recklessly pursuant to s 18 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
 2. The accused has also been charged with s23 Common Assault1, s18 Causing
Intentionally and recklessly2, s13 Persons Found Drunk3 and s9 Wilful destruction,
damage etc. of property4. He is presently in police custody.
2. The accused Morris is a law-abiding citizen with no criminal history. She has never
been charged or convicted with any offence. This proves her positive character. The
present incident is one of a case where the applicant acted completely out of her
normal character. 
3. However, despite this she has only one other blemish on her criminal record from 5
years ago, but she was not convicted. 
4. The accused is young and has a promising professional life. She is 27 years old and is
in stable relationship with her partner of same sex for 2 years, Paulina and she are a
breadwinner in their relationship. 
5. The accused is earning a steady income of $125,500 per year in marketing, has a
shares worth over $75,000 and savings in excess of $50,000.00. 
6. The accused has been born and raised in Melbourne, and she is a holder of a
commercial pilot license. 
7. The accused is a black belt in ‘Zen Do Kai’ having practised the style for the past 4
years.

POLICE BRIEF
1. The police stated that there were two of the witnesses to the assault of Ms. Kendal.
2. Ms. Kendal’s suffered severe bruises, abrasions, injuries which required nine stiches
on the forehead and has been traumatized by the altercation.
3. The accused damaged the property which was more than $3000.
 
STATUTORY PROVISIONS 
1. S 18 of The Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) clearly lays down that a person who intentionally or
recklessly causes injury will be guilty of and indictable offence.5 
2. S 4 of The Bail Act 1977 clearly lays down that a person accused of an offence and
being held in custody in relation to that offence, is entitled to be granted bail unless
the bail decision maker is required to refuse bail by this Act. 
3. S 18 of The Crimes Act 1958 do not expressly fall under Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 of
The Bail Act 1977.6 

1
Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic) s23.
2
Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s18.
3
Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic) s13
4
Ibid s9
5
The crimes act 1958(vic) S18.
6
The Bail Act 1977(vic) Sch 1.
 4. Schedule 1 The Bail Act 1977 lays down that a person if accused of an offence under
this schedule shall be subject to exceptional circumstances test. In our scenario both
the offence is not mentioned in the schedule 1 so this test shall not apply in our
case.7  
5. Schedule 2 of The Bail Act 1977 lays down an exceptional circumstances test or the
show compelling reason test, some of the expressly mentioned offence in schedule 2
are S 15 A (1), S15 B (1) S 16 and S 20 of The Crimes Act 1958. Thus, in our scenario
we shall also not apply this test.8 
6. Bail is considered to be the most important fundamental right which was set during
the precedent R v Light case where it was agreed upon that unless a dire cause
presents itself should not be passed over.
7. Some views are still unwaivered against Ms. Morris’s bail, the case law of Beljajev v
DDP9 where it was instituted that the burden of proof lies on them to show the
unacceptable risk that she may hold if allowed bail.

CASE LAW 
1. R v Light (1954) clearly established that the starting point and fundamental common
law presumption is that all persons shall be granted bail. This is concurrent to the s
21(2) and s 22 (6) of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities
2006.10 
2. In R v Magee (2009) the Supreme Court decided that “a citizen should not be
detained arbitrarily because there is a real risk him committing a further offence of a
relatively minor nature; one that the criminal law will punish if committed”.11 
3. In Haddar (2014) the accused caused serious injury recklessly in the circumstances of
gross violence was granted bail.12 
4. DPP v Harika (2001) VSC 237 court explained the meaning of unacceptable risk and
show cause.13 
5. Beljajev v DDP14 where the court instituted that the burden of proof lies on the
applicant to show the unacceptable risk that they may hold if allowed bail.

 
ARGUMENTS FOR THE GRANT OF BAIL 
1. The accused is a law-abiding citizen and from a reputed family. She is a resident of
Melbourne. The present concurrence is not the natural character of the accused, and
it was an episode which occurred on a spur of a movement, it was neither planned
7
The Bail Act 1977(vic) Sch 1.
8
The Bail Act 1977(vic) Sch 2
9
Beljajev v Director of Public Prosecutions [1991] HCA 16; 173 CLR 28.
10
R v Light [1954] VLR 152.
11
R v Magee [2009] VSC 384
12
R v Haddar [2014] VSC 284
13
DPP v Harika [2001] VSC 237
14
Beljajev v Director of Public Prosecutions [1991] HCA 16; 173 CLR 28.
 nor a well thought out strategized event. There was never any intention of the
applicant to hurt the alleged victim, the accused himself is the victim of circumstance
which were beyond the control of the applicant. 
2. Ms. Morris is in a stable relationship from a period of 2 years with her partner
Paulina and also commits herself to the community volunteering to teach the kids
Zen Do Kai on her off days for past 4 years.
3. The accused surrounding circumstances must be considered I her request for bail in
accordance with s3AAA15 of the Bail Act.  
4. The case of Haddar [2014] VSC 284 show that even a person, which was accused of
causing serious injury recklessly in the circumstance of gross violence got granted
bail, since Morris was only accused of causing serious injury, there is no reason to not
grant bail. 
5. Ms. Morris is a first-time offender with no prior convictions and also, she has no
connections with any of the terrorists or their gang or any of the terrorist activities.

REBUTTAL FOR THE ARGUMENST AGAINST THE GRANT OF BAIL

1. During this joint team meal Ms. Morris’s partner Paulina was verbally insulted by Ms.
Kendal and also the witness for holding hands which continued for half an hour. Ms.
Kendal slowly edged towards them both in a menacing manner.
2. This was caught on the CCTV of the security camera but at the time of arrest it was
not recognized or acknowledged by the police.
3. In these circumstances both the surrounding circumstances and unacceptable risk
test can be put to rest according to the section 4E(1)(a)16 of the Bail Act.
4. The remaining charge of willful destruction of property has yet to be proven in
respect to Ms. Morris. It is very unfair and illegal to assume that the damage was
caused by her, as one of the fundamental rules of stated in the charter of human
rights Vic is the presumption of innocent until proven guilty seen in s25.
5. The security camera’s that had bear all the truth were ignored by the police officers
and the authorities but now being at risk for being tapered or destroyed.
6. The prosecution has alleged that the applicant has not been spoken to his parents
from last 2 years and he in the contact with the bad elements within the community.
This statement is malicious and scandalous as due to personal and social
circumstances the applicant has not spoken to his parents.
7. The prosecution has further alleged that applicant is the childhood friend belong to
the local gang and police has serious concern that the given the association and this
violent incident the applicant could be a real threat to the victim. This story does not
hold any ground as the applicant has never been in touch with him from last several
years, they were school buddies and now are not even on talking terms with each
other.
8. The Prosecution is also opposing the bail on the ground that Ms. Morris is quite
traumatized by the incident, the prosecution has failed to take in consideration that it
15
Bail Act 1977 (Vic) s3AA.
16
Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) s25.
 was Ms. Morris who has attacked the applicant and the so-called witness are the
crime partner of Ms. Morris.
9. The prosecution although is opposing the bail but has miserably failed to convince
the court on the true facts of the case and this itself is a valid reason for the
honorable court to be satisfied for the grant of the bail.

PROPOSED BAIL CONDITIONS

1. Ms. Morris will concede her driving license, her commercial pilot’s license, and
passport to the concerned authorities and put on airport’s watchlist.
2. Ms. Morris will have no access to any of the social media during the time period of
her bail.
3. Ms. Morris will attend the anger management program with the Hart Centre.
4. Ms. Morris will be forbidden any type of personal contact with her childhood friends
that are a part of the local gang.
5. Ms. Morris will also be forbidden any contact with the witnesses or any of the
victims.
6. Also, Ms. Morris will be in line with s5AAA (4) of the Bail Act17 any other condition
deemed just and appropriate by the bail decision maker to the conduct of the
accused.

PERSONAL AND SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES

As per the conditions of the ‘surrounding circumstances’ laid down in section 3AAA of the
Bail Act 1977.
(a) The present alleged offence is a one of incident with no attribution to seriousness of the
alleged offending;
(b) The witnesses are untested, and the prosecution case is not on a tangible base.
(c) The accused is well reputed person in the local community with no criminal history;
(d) The accused has always complied with law of land and adhered to all the laws18.
(e) The accused has a stable social and family life and there is no violence intervention order
against the accused.
(f) The accused has a stable life with full time job and own place of residence.
(g) The alleged association of the president of the local gang is factually incorrect as the
accused has never meet him since the school days19.
(h) The alleged victim is traumatized by the incident, but the accused is undertaking to stay
away from the victim and the witness and there is no chance of re-offending20.

17
Bail Act 1977 (Vic) 5AAA (4).
18
The Bail Act 1977 (Vic) S 3AAA
19
The Bail Act 1977 (Vic) S 3AAA
20
The Bail Act 1977 (Vic) S 3AAA
(i) The accused would have to spend a substantial time in custody if bail is refused;
(j) The likely sentence to be imposed should the accused be found guilty of the offence with
which the accused is charged;
(k) The accused does not have any expressed support from any terrorist organization21.

SUMMARY
1. Ms. Morris has not committed Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 offence as she does not
have any past criminal history.
2. Ms. Morris did not commit this offence willfully.
3. Ms. Morris relationship with her parents is more of her personal choice and there is
no evidence to show that why she chooses to do so.
4. Ms. Morris relationship with the president of local gang is not at all relevant in this
matter as they are their childhood friends, and they are just her past.
5. Considering the combined nature of Ms. Morris’s first-time conviction, her long-term
employment, her financial means, and also of her voluntaries at the dojo. The
narrative for unacceptable risk and presumption to bail under s4 of Bail Act cannot
be seen, so there is no logical reason to deny bail to Ms. Morris.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

LEGISLATION
21
The Bail Act 1977 (Vic) S 3AAA
  Bail Act 1977 (Vic)
 Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic)
 The Crimes Act 1958 (Vic)

CASE LAW
 R v Light [1954] VLR 152.
 R v Magee [2009] VSC 384
 R v Haddar [2014] VSC 284
 DPP v Harika [2001] VSC 237
 Beljajev v Director of Public Prosecutions [1991] HCA 16; 173 CLR 28.