Bail application by Fadi Haddara - [2014] VSC 284

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No SCR 2014 0062

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail under the Bail Act 1977
FADI HADDARA	Applicant
v
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	HOLLINGWORTH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 June 2014
DATE OF RULING:	18 June 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Bail application by Fadi Haddara
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 284

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – “Exceptional circumstances”– Delay, availability of appropriate treatment, provision of substantial surety – Risks of re-offending, endangering the safety or welfare of others, and interfering with witnesses – Risks not unacceptable while residing in drug treatment facility – Bail granted on conditions

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr C Dane QC	Garde-Wilson Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr P Rose QC	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

The applicant is one of 15 co-accused, charged as part of a police investigation into the trafficking of methylamphetamine (“ice”) and firearms in the western suburbs of Melbourne. The police investigation involved the use of telephone intercepts, purchases of methylamphetamine and firearms by covert police operatives, and the installation of listening and optical devices.

The applicant is currently facing 25 charges, which include: drug trafficking; violence offences, including intentionally or recklessly causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence, and affray; attempted armed burglary; and numerous firearms offences. He was charged with 17 offences on 18 March 2014, and the remaining 8 offences on 10 April 2014.

Because he is charged with trafficking in a drug of dependence (methylamphetamine) in not less than a commercial quantity, the applicant needs to establish the existence of “exceptional circumstances”, before bail can be granted.

On 9 May 2014, the applicant was refused bail before the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court. Magistrate Harding held that the applicant had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances, and that there was an unacceptable risk of him committing an offence while on bail, or interfering with witnesses.

By notice filed in this court on 12 May 2014, the applicant seeks bail.

The applicant argues that exceptional circumstances are shown because of the following matters:

(a) The nature of the prosecution case;

(b) The likely delay before trial;

(c) The availability of an intensive residential rehabilitation program to address his methylamphetamine usage;

(d) The support of his family, including in the provision of a substantial surety; and

(e) The need for parity with his co-accused.

The DPP disputes that exceptional circumstances have been shown. The DPP also opposes bail on the basis that the applicant presents an unacceptable risk of interfering with witnesses, endangering the safety or welfare of others, and committing further offences while on bail.

The applicant submits that any such risks are not unacceptable, if appropriate bail conditions are imposed, having regard to the following matters:

(a) His limited prior convictions;

(b) His bail history;

(c) His lack of prior convictions for interfering with witnesses;

(d) The availability of 24 hour supervised…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bail application by Fadi Haddara

Details

AGLC: Bail application by Fadi Haddara [2014] VSC 284
Case: [2014] VSC 284
Decision Date: 18 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Fadi Haddara, the primary focus of the court was to determine whether the accused should be granted bail. The dispute arose from the serious charges brought against Haddara, which included allegations of drug-related offences and potential involvement in organised crime. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the delay in the proceedings constituted an exceptional circumstance, the availability of appropriate treatment for Haddara's drug dependency, and the provision of a substantial surety. Additionally, the court needed to assess the risks of Haddara re-offending, endangering the safety or welfare of others, and interfering with witnesses. The court had to weigh these factors against the potential benefits of granting bail, particularly in light of Haddara's commitment to reside in a drug treatment facility.

The Federal Court found that the delay in the proceedings did not constitute an exceptional circumstance, but the availability of appropriate treatment and the provision of a substantial surety were significant factors in favour of granting bail. The court also determined that while the risks of re-offending, endangering others, and interfering with witnesses were present, they were not deemed unacceptable if Haddara adhered to the conditions of his bail, which included residing in a drug treatment facility. Based on this reasoning, the court granted bail on specified conditions. These conditions were designed to ensure Haddara's compliance with the treatment program and to mitigate the risks identified by the court.

Orders