Haddara v DPP - [2007] VSC 274

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1537 of 2007

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by WALEED HADDARA

---

JUDGE:	BONGIORNO J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 July 2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 July 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Waleed Haddara v DPP
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 274

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Alleged offences occurred whilst on bail for other pending charges of similar nature – Kidnapping; Aggravated burglary – ss 4(4)(a), 4(4)(c) Bail Act 1977.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr S Tyrell	Revill & Papa Lawyers
For the Respondent	Solicitor	OPP

HIS HONOUR:

Waleed Haddara, you have been charged with a number of serious offences including kidnapping and aggravated burglary. The offences are alleged to have occurred in January of this year and to have involved a man called John Kripintiris. The events complained of by Kripintiris include his being forced to try to obtain money from his father to secure his release and the alleged use of a handgun by your alleged accomplice, Berryman.

Kripintiris has made a number of statements to police about the events of 25‑29 January 2007, not all of them consistent. Your counsel has submitted that these inconsistencies weaken the Crown case, as do inevitable credit difficulties Kripintiris faces by reason of his being an alleged drug dealer.

You were arrested in May for these offences. You made a “no comment” record of interview, and have been in custody since. You are now seeking bail pending your committal and, if committed, your trial.

At the time these offences allegedly occurred you were on bail for a number of other offences for which you have been committed for trial in the County Court in November 2007. These offences include aggravated burglary and kidnapping, and a number of other offences similar to those for which you now seek bail.

The fact that you were on bail when these alleged offences were committed, and the fact that they include a count of aggravated burglary, causes sections 4(4)(a) and 4(4)(c) of the Bail Act 1977 to be applicable. You must satisfy this Court that your continued detention in custody is not justified if you are to be bailed.

Your counsel has identified eight separate matters which, he submitted, should move this Court to the required state of satisfaction. He cited your current family situation: your wife's pregnancy, her medical difficulties and other matters of which she gave evidence. However, she lives with your parents and will continue to do so. Although your absence is undesirable, having regard to her condition, it is not as significant here as it might be in another case.

Your counsel referred to delay which may affect your case. He suggested that you may not be tried until the end of next year, or perhaps not until 2009. This may well be correct but, of…

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 Haddara v DPP

Details

AGLC: Haddara v Director of Public Prosecutions [2007] VSC 274
Case: [2007] VSC 274
Decision Date: 20 July 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court was called upon to determine the bail application of Mr Haddara, who faced allegations of kidnapping and aggravated burglary, charges that arose while he was already on bail for other offences of a similar nature. The Bail Act 1977 was invoked in this matter, specifically sections 4(4)(a) and 4(4)(c), which pertain to the denial of bail in circumstances where an accused is on bail for other serious indictable offences.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the commission of new offences while on bail warranted the denial of bail for these additional charges, considering the pre-existing bail conditions. This required a careful examination of the balance between the presumption of innocence and the need to protect the community, especially when the accused was already on bail for other serious criminal charges. The Court had to assess whether the gravity of the new charges, combined with the fact that they occurred while the accused was on bail for other serious offences, justified a denial of bail under the statutory provisions.

In its decision, the Court emphasised the importance of ensuring public safety and the integrity of the legal process. It concluded that the commission of new offences while on bail, particularly when these offences are of a serious nature and similar to those for which bail was initially granted, provides a strong ground for denying bail. The Court found that the cumulative effect of the accused's conduct, including the commission of new offences while on bail for other serious charges, warranted the denial of bail under sections 4(4)(a) and 4(4)(c) of the Bail Act 1977. The Court's ruling underscores the significance of maintaining stringent bail conditions when an accused individual demonstrates a pattern of serious criminal behaviour.

The final orders of the Court confirmed the denial of bail for Mr Haddara in respect of the new charges of kidnapping and aggravated burglary, reaffirming the importance of preventing further criminal activity and protecting the community while the accused awaits trial on all pending charges.

Orders