El Ali v The Queen - [2013] VSC 216

Do Not Send for Reporting
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA		Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. S CR 2013 0056

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act1977 (Vic)

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by MOHAMMAD EL ALI

---

JUDGE:	CURTAIN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23 April 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 May 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	El Ali v R
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 216

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Applicant on bail at the time of alleged offences – Clandestine laboratory – Drug and firearm offences – Laboratory operating at bailed residential address – Charges of failing to answer bail and breach of an intervention order – Bail refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr P. Morrissey SC	Grigor Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr J. McWilliams	Office of Public Prosecutions

HER HONOUR:

On 20 and 27 November 2011, the applicant Mohammed El Ali was charged with the following offences: possession of material for the purposes of trafficking; possessing a prescribed precursor chemical; possessing a drug of dependence (amphetamine); trafficking a drug of dependence (amphetamine); unlicensed possession of ammunition; cultivating a narcotic plant and possessing the same; possessing a drug of dependence (MDMA); three charges of possession of an unregistered handgun; dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime; three charges of being a prohibited person possessing a firearm; and possessing a precursor chemical (iodine) in a quantity not less than the prescribed quantity.

The offences arose from the police attendance at premises at 9 Bond Street, Hadfield to check upon the applicant to ascertain if he was complying with bail conditions. Upon knocking and identifying themselves as police, the police heard a commotion and a female in distress. A short time later, the applicant walked from the backyard and spoke to police. He did not reply to their query as to who was inside and if everyone was all right. The police again knocked on the front door and, on this occasion, Evangelia Christou opened the door. The police inquired of her welfare and then pushed past her to check the welfare of other persons inside. Once inside, the police observed a clandestine laboratory in operation in the living area of the house.

Both the applicant and Ms Christou were removed and placed in custody. The area was cordoned off and emergency services and the Clandestine Laboratory Squad attended. Upon doing so, the Clandestine Laboratory Squad determined that a complex laboratory had been in operation in almost every room of the house. Dangerous chemicals were present and materials used to manufacture drugs of dependence.

A pat-down search of the applicant located a bullet inside one of his pockets and a subsequent search revealed two loaded handguns underneath cushions in the loungeroom, a loaded pen gun inside a wardrobe, a small amount of ecstasy, two cannabis plants with transformers and a fan, approximately 1,000 rounds of ammunition, a loaded magazine for a…

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 El Ali v The Queen

Details

AGLC: El Ali v The Queen [2013] VSC 216
Case: [2013] VSC 216
Decision Date: 1 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of El Ali v The Queen, the applicant, who was on bail at the time, was charged with offences related to the operation of a clandestine drug laboratory and the possession of firearms at a residential address. The matters came before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was whether the applicant should be granted bail in light of his alleged involvement in these serious criminal activities.

The court was tasked with balancing the applicant's right to liberty against the need to ensure public safety and confidence in the justice system. It considered the seriousness of the alleged offences, the risk of re-offending, and the potential impact on the community if the applicant were to be released on bail. Given the severity of the charges and the applicant's history of involvement in criminal activities, the court found that there was a substantial risk that the applicant would re-offend if released on bail. Furthermore, the court highlighted the risk to the community posed by the continued operation of the drug laboratory.

Consequently, the court refused the application for bail. The court concluded that the applicant's continued detention was necessary to protect the community and to prevent the applicant from engaging in further criminal conduct. The court also noted the breach of an intervention order as an additional factor supporting the refusal of bail. The court's decision was grounded in the need to uphold public safety and maintain the integrity of the legal system.

Orders