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:

1. 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. 

1. 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. 

1. 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. 

1. 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. 

1. 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.

1. 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. 

1. 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 course, if you are acquitted at your trial in the County Court in November you will have a good ground for re‑opening the question of bail. In any event, if your counsel’s submissions as to the weakness of the Crown case in respect of the current charges are correct, you will not be committed for trial on them.

1. Your counsel pointed to your sad criminal history and made the point that you have no prior convictions for violence.  This may be technically true, but you have been dealt with by the Children's Court for affray, and more importantly your history shows a serial disregard for the law and for court orders in the past which is quite astounding for someone as young as you. 

1. Your counsel said you had a good bail history, having failed to appear only once, and then as a result of a mistake on a driving charge.  Even if your non‑attendance was as a result of a mistake, the event itself is still a failure to answer bail and a carelessness with legal obligations, which does you no credit, particularly in the circumstances in which you now find yourself.

1. It is said that you have strong ties to the jurisdiction, a business to run, and the possibility of acceptance into the CISP program for your drug habit.  None of these matters leads me to a conclusion which would entitle you to bail.  You will be drug‑free in gaol, as you apparently are now, and this situation will continue until you are finally released.  So far as your business and ties to the jurisdiction are concerned, they are not matters in any way out of the ordinary. 

1. Finally, as far as the strength of the Crown case is concerned, although the credit of Kripintiris may be badly dented by his inconsistencies, there is other evidence which connects you to some, at least, of these crimes, and in any event there has not yet been a committal which will give you an opportunity to defeat the charges then if your argument is a good one.  If you do, your prospect of bail would, of course, be significantly enhanced. 

1. The matters with which you are charged are serious.  They allegedly occurred in circumstances where the law places an onus on you to justify being bailed.  You have not discharged that onus.  The application is refused. 

---