Legal Research
Cases
Haidy v DPP

Haidy v DPP

Case [2004] VSC 247 22 April 2004

Bail

Unacceptable Risk

Financial and Emotional Hardship

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

PRACTICE COURT

No. 1417 of 2004

IN THE MATTER of an Application for bail by WILLIAM HAIDY (also known as VASAILLEY)

---

JUDGE:	Redlich J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 April 2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 April 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Haidy v DPP
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 247

---

Bail application – Trafficking in a drug of dependence - Section 4(4)(a) Bail Act 1997 – Financial and emotional hardship to Applicant’s family – Whether “sufficient cause”.

Section 4(2)(d) Bail Act 1997 – “Unacceptable risk” – Degree of risk and standard of proof – Time likely to elapse before charges are heard.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Mr M. Rochford	Ms K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr D. Morey

HIS HONOUR:

I have before me an Application for bail by William Haidy. For reasons, which I articulated during the course of submissions, the Application should be refused.

The circumstances which bring the Applicant before the court are set out in an Affidavit filed by Zargy Kozarov dated 16 April 2004. The Applicant who resides in Echuca with his partner and two sons was charged in February 2004 with the offences of trafficking in a drug of dependence, namely cannabis; possessing a drug of dependence, namely cannabis; using a drug of dependence, namely cannabis; possession of a prohibited weapon without exemption, that being a Samurai sword, and dealing in property being the suspected proceeds of crime under the Confiscation Act 1997. The Applicant has prior convictions for cultivating and using cannabis in 1994 and 1996.

At the time of these alleged offences, the Applicant was on bail for similar offences. The Applicant was then facing charges of trafficking in cannabis, possessing cannabis, using cannabis, possessing money being the proceeds of crime and possessing prohibited fireworks. The trafficking charge related to the period between 1 December 2002 and 17 October 2003.

On 20 February 2004, police executed a search warrant at the premises of the Applicant in Echuca. Upon a search of the premises, a blue chilli bag was located in the garage which contained nine snap-lock bags each containing one ounce of green vegetable matter which it was subsequently established was cannabis. The samurai sword and a home-made baton were located inside a cardboard box in the garage where the cannabis was located. Cash was found in the Applicant’s home. There is a dispute as to the source of that cash. I do not rest my conclusions upon any view as to the source of that cash.

The raid on the Applicant’s house was a similar one to the one which gave rise to the first set of offences upon which the Applicant had been charged and upon which he was on bail. Needless to say, in considering the Applicant’s present Application for bail, the court must have regard to the fact that if these offences were committed, they were…

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 Haidy v DPP

Details

AGLC: Haidy v DPP [2004] VSC 247
Case: [2004] VSC 247
Decision Date: 22 April 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Haidy v DPP involved an application for bail by the defendant, Haidy, who was charged with trafficking in a drug of dependence. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of the relevant jurisdiction. The primary issue before the court was whether there was sufficient cause to grant bail, considering the nature and seriousness of the offence, and the potential for the applicant to abscond or reoffend.

The court had to determine whether the hardship to the applicant's family, both financial and emotional, constituted sufficient cause for bail under section 4(4)(a) of the Bail Act 1997. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the risk of the applicant failing to appear in court or reoffending posed an unacceptable risk under section 4(2)(d) of the Act. The decision hinged on the degree of risk involved and the standard of proof required to establish this risk.

The court examined the factors relevant to both provisions of the Act. It considered the nature and seriousness of the offence, the circumstances of the alleged crime, and the likelihood of the applicant appearing for trial. The court also weighed the impact on the applicant's family and the potential for reoffending. Ultimately, the court found that the risk of the applicant failing to appear or reoffending was not so high as to constitute an unacceptable risk, and that the hardship to the applicant's family did not amount to sufficient cause for bail. Consequently, the application for bail was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders