Chami v The King - [2025] NSWCCA 91

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Chami v R [2025] NSWCCA 91
Hearing dates: 6 June 2025
Decision date: 18 June 2025
Before: Mitchelmore JA;
Ierace J;
Coleman J
Decision:
Application for bail refused.

Catchwords:
CRIME — Bail — Release application — Where two previous bail applications have been refused — Shooting with intent to murder and discharging a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm as the alternative charge — Show cause provisions — Whether the applicant has shown cause why his detention is not justified — Youth, first time in custody, 15 months on remand, no record of prior convictions and delay — Where co-accused was granted bail — Dispute as to whether the Crown case has inherent fatal weaknesses — Whether proposed conditions of bail mitigate bail concerns to an acceptable level

Legislation Cited:
Bail Act 2013 (NSW), ss 16A, 16B(1)(d)(i), 17(2), 17(2)(a), 17(2)(c), 17(2)(d), 18(1)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 29, 33A(1)(a)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 38

Cases Cited:
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Mawad [2015] NSWCCA 227
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Tikomaimaleya [2015] NSWCA 83
Lee v The King [2024] NSWCCA 202
Moukhallaletti v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2016] NSWCCA 314
R v Touma [2025] NSWSC 14

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Usman Chami (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Avenell SC (Applicant)
K Jeffreys (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Crimcorp Defence Lawyers (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2025/00161440

JUDGMENT

THE COURT: The applicant, Usman Chami, and a co-accused, Noah Touma, are charged with a count of shooting with intent to murder, contrary to s 29 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and, in the alternative, discharging a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 33A(1)(a) of the Crimes Act. Each count has a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment. Both counts have standard non-parole periods: 10 years for the first count and 9 years for the alternative count. The trial of the applicant and his co-accused is set down to commence on 2 March 2026.
The Crown case is that the applicant and Mr Touma participated in a joint criminal enterprise to murder Suman Mokhtarian, at about 7.47pm on 20 February 2024, by shooting him at close range outside a gym that he owned and operated on Wentworth Avenue, Wentworthville (the gym). The applicant’s role was to assist in the preparation and act as a spotter at the time of the shooting.
The count of shooting with intent is a “show cause” offence, pursuant to s 16B(1)(d)(i) of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW), which obliges the Court to refuse bail unless the applicant shows cause why his or her detention is not justified: s 16A of the Bail Act. If cause is shown, the Court proceeds to determine if it has any bail concerns, as defined in s 17(2) of the Bail Act, having regard to the matters identified in s 18 that are relevant…

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 Chami v The King

Details

AGLC: Chami v The King [2025] NSWCCA 91
Case: [2025] NSWCCA 91
Decision Date: 18 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Chami v The King concerned an application for bail by the applicant, who had been remanded in custody for a period of 15 months, facing charges of shooting with intent to murder and discharging a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The application followed two previous refusals and was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicant argued that he had shown cause why his detention was not justified, citing his youth, the absence of prior convictions, and the delay in the proceedings. The applicant also highlighted that his co-accused had been granted bail, and there was a dispute regarding the inherent strengths of the Crown's case.

The legal issues before the court included whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient cause to justify his continued detention given the specific circumstances of his case. The court was required to consider the principle of bail as a fundamental right, balanced against the need to ensure public safety and the likelihood of the accused appearing at trial. Additionally, the court had to assess the proposed bail conditions to determine if they adequately mitigated the risks associated with granting bail.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the applicant's arguments but found that the seriousness of the charges, particularly the use of a firearm, outweighed the mitigating factors. The court noted that the applicant's co-accused had been granted bail, but this did not automatically entitle the applicant to the same relief. The court further considered the proposed bail conditions and concluded that while they were stringent, they did not sufficiently address the concerns regarding public safety and the risk of reoffending. Consequently, the application for bail was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the application for bail was dismissed, and the applicant was to remain in custody pending the outcome of the trial. The court emphasised the gravity of the charges and the need to protect the community while also recognising the applicant's right to a fair trial.

Orders