Legal Research
Cases
Lee v R (Cth)

Lee v R (Cth)

Case [2024] NSWCCA 202 1 November 2024

Bail

Admissibility of Evidence

Conspiracy

Electronic Monitoring

Risk Assessment

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lee v R (Cth) [2024] NSWCCA 202
Hearing dates: 18 October 2024
Date of orders: 1 November 2024
Decision date: 01 November 2024
Before: Stern JA at [1]
Dhanji J at [2]
Faulkner J at [79]
Decision:
Bail granted subject to conditions.

Catchwords:
CRIME – bail – release application – show cause test – conspiracy to import commercial quantity of cocaine – Operation Ironside – AN0M devices – admissibility of AN0M evidence – did the applicant enter into a conspiracy – strength of Crown case – long delay – cause shown – unacceptable risk test – electronic monitoring – risk mitigated – bail granted subject to conditions

Legislation Cited:
Bail Act 2013 (NSW)
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Code (Cth)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth)
Weapons Prohibition Act 1988 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Barr (a pseudonym) v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (2018) 97 NSWLR 246; [2018] NSWCA 47
Barr (a pseudonym) v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (2018) 97 NSWLR 246; [2018] NSWCA 47
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Hing [2017] NSWCCA 325
Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd (2007) 230 CLR 89; [2007] HCA 22
Flower v R [2020] NSWSC 64
Iongi v R [2022] NSWCCA 42
Mate v R (Supreme Court (NSW), Yehia J, 20 September 2022, unrep)
Question of Law Reserved (Nos 1 and 2 of 2023) [2024] SASCA 82
R v Bail Applicant M [2020] NSWSC 1685
R v Damcevski (Supreme Court (NSW), Dhanji J, 23 October 2023, unrep)
R v Dogan (Supreme Court (NSW), Weinstein J, 31 August 2023, unrep)
R v Falzon (2018) 92 ALJR 701; [2018] HCA 29
R v Kugor [2015] NSWCCA 14
R v Lee (Supreme Court (NSW), Ierace J, 1 December 2023, unrep
R v Okusitino; R v Lavulo; R v Iongi [2024] NSWSC 1
R v Siafakas (Supreme Court (NSW), N Adams J, 4 September 2023, unrep)

Texts Cited:
Criminal Trials Bench Book, 5-5310
Orchard, “Agreement in Criminal Conspiracy - 1” [1974] Criminal Law Review 297
Practice Note No. SC CCA 1 Court of Criminal Appeal – General

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Julian Lee (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Djemal SC (Applicant)
R Ranken SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Kekatos Lawyers (Applicant)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2024/00264352
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

STERN JA: I agree with Dhanji J.
DHANJI J: Julian Lee (“the applicant”) has made a release application pursuant to s 49 of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) (“the Act”). Bail decisions, refusing the applicant bail, have previously been made by the Supreme Court. On 13 December 2022, RA Hulme AJ refused the applicant bail. On 1 December 2023, Ierace J also refused the applicant bail. This Court, as a result, has power to hear the application: s 67(1)(e) of the Act; Iongi v R [2022] NSWCCA 42. The application is…

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 Lee v R (Cth)

Details

AGLC: Lee v R (Cth) [2024] NSWCCA 202
Case: [2024] NSWCCA 202
Decision Date: 01 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an application for bail by the applicant, Lee, against the respondent, the Commonwealth. Lee was charged with conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of cocaine, stemming from a larger operation known as Operation Ironside. The applicant was arrested after police intercepted communications using AN0M devices. The court had to decide whether the applicant had entered into a conspiracy to import the drugs and whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant his continued detention. Further, the court had to consider whether the risk posed by Lee's release could be mitigated by conditions, and if so, whether those conditions were sufficient to justify bail.

The court examined the strength of the evidence against Lee and whether it was sufficient to establish that he had entered into a conspiracy to import the drugs. The court also considered the risk that Lee might pose if released and whether that risk could be mitigated by imposing bail conditions. The court concluded that while there was sufficient evidence to establish that Lee had entered into a conspiracy, the risk he posed could be mitigated by imposing strict bail conditions, including electronic monitoring. The court noted that the delay in the proceedings had caused some prejudice to the applicant, but that this did not outweigh the strength of the evidence against him.

After considering the factors outlined above, the court decided to grant the applicant bail, subject to certain conditions. These conditions included electronic monitoring and strict limitations on the applicant's movements and associations. The court found that these conditions were sufficient to mitigate the risk posed by the applicant's release. The court also noted that the delay in the proceedings had caused some prejudice to the applicant, but that this did not outweigh the strength of the evidence against him. The court concluded that the applicant had made out a sufficient case for bail and granted the application subject to the conditions imposed.

The final orders of the court were that the applicant be released on bail subject to the conditions imposed. The court also ordered that the applicant be electronically monitored and that his movements and associations be strictly limited. The court further ordered that the applicant be subject to regular check-ins with bail authorities and that he be prohibited from using any electronic devices except as permitted by the court. These orders were intended to mitigate the risk posed by the applicant's release while still allowing him to prepare his defence.

Orders