DPP v Koumis - [2006] VSC 416

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1541 of 2006

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail :

THEODOSIS KOUMIS

---

JUDGE:	COLDREY J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	2 OCTOBER 2006
DATE OF RULING:	5 OCTOBER 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP (VIC) V KOUMIS
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 416

---

Criminal Law – Bail – Previous unsuccessful applications for bail - Consideration of exceptional circumstances – Application refused

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr S. Cooper	Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr S. Cash	C Marshall & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

The applicant (Theodosis Koumis) who is a 58 year old married man with four adult children and is a tiler by occupation, was arrested on 11 April 2006 and charged with a number of drug offences. These included offences committed between 3 March and 11 April 2006 which allegedly involved trafficking in a large commercial quantity of heroin and amphetamine; trafficking in a commercial quantity of heroin; and trafficking in both heroin and amphetamine.

As part of the police investigation, code named "Wahoo" a telephone intercept warrant applicable to the applicant's mobile phones was obtained.

As a result, according to a police report prepared by the informant, Senior Constable Timothy Hayward, a drug network was exposed. It was alleged that two other persons arrested at this time, Tuan Le and Mili Bala, were suppliers of these drugs to the applicant.

Additionally, according to the police report, some eight persons from locations as disparate as the Western suburbs, Geelong, Portland, Hamilton, Ballarat and Mildura were supplied with drugs by the applicant in varying quantities and for varying costs.

The telephone intercepts indicate that codes were being employed by the applicant and the alleged co-offenders in discussing quantities and money.

It is not necessary to detail the individual dealings alleged. At the time of his arrest the applicant and his house were searched. Various drugs and some $1600 in cash were located.

When interviewed by investigating police the applicant denied purchasing drugs from Le and Bala, or supplying drugs to four other alleged co-offenders. He stated that he only supplied a small amount of drugs to help out a few female friends. He also told police that he did not, himself, have a drug habit.

For completeness one other factual matter should be mentioned. On 29 March 2006 the applicant was a victim of an armed robbery perpetrated by his nephew, Con Koumis, and another person, Adam Borg, at premises in St Albans. This was recorded on a telephone intercept applicable to Operation Wahoo.

On 30 March the applicant reported the theft of his mobile phone, wallet and jewellery to Keilor Downs Police. He did not mention two ounces of amphetamine and a quantity of heroin which the police allege was also stolen. The court was informed that the applicant intended to give evidence for the Crown in this matter.

Since his arrest…

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 DPP v Koumis

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Koumis [2006] VSC 416
Case: [2006] VSC 416
Decision Date: 5 October 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Koumis, the defendant, who faced serious criminal charges, sought bail for the third time. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Koumis had previously been denied bail on two occasions due to the severity of the charges and the risk of flight. The court was tasked with determining whether there had been any exceptional circumstances that would warrant a reconsideration of bail.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether there were any new or exceptional circumstances that had not been previously considered, which would justify granting bail to Koumis. The court needed to assess the evidence and arguments presented by both the prosecution and the defence to decide if granting bail would be appropriate. It also had to consider the risk of flight and the potential impact on the community if bail were granted.

The court examined the arguments put forth by both parties and considered the evidence presented. It found that there were no new or exceptional circumstances that had not already been taken into account in the previous bail decisions. The court reiterated that the gravity of the charges and the risk of flight were significant factors that weighed against granting bail. Consequently, the application for bail was refused, and the court upheld the previous decisions denying Koumis bail.

No further orders were made by the court beyond the refusal of bail.

Orders