R v Ayoub - [2020] NSWSC 154

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ayoub [2020] NSWSC 154
Hearing dates: 26 February 2020
Date of orders: 03 March 2020
Decision date: 03 March 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Davies J
Decision:
1.   Bail order made by Wright J in the Supreme Court at Sydney on 7 August 2019 be varied such that Tarek Ayoub (the Applicant) report to Bankstown Police Station, once daily between 4:00pm and 8:00pm on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

2.   In lieu of Condition (d) as indicated on page 3 of the Court Order Notice referable to the Bail Order made by Wright J, in the Supreme Court at Sydney, on 7 August 2019:

(i)   The Bail Order made by Wright J, in the Supreme Court at Sydney on 7 August 2019 in relation to Police Charge Number H 69998468 be varied such that an acceptable person [Ms Sahar Ayoub] enter an agreement to forfeit the sum of $5,000 if the Applicant fails to appear before the Court in accordance with the bail conditions imposed in relation to Police Charge Number H 69998468. [JusticeLink 2018/00291851]

(ii)   The Bail Order imposed, in relation to Police Charge Number H 68071661 be varied such that an acceptable person [Ms Sahar Ayoub] must (A) deposit $5,000 by way of security, and (B) agree to forfeit that amount if the Applicant fails to attend Court and otherwise comply with the bail conditions referable to the charges laid under Police Charge Number H 68071661. [JusticeLink 2018/00143744]

3.   Bail order made by Johnson J in the Supreme Court at Sydney on 10 February 2020 be varied such that Tarek Ayoub (the Applicant) can be absent from the premises (situated at 25 Market Street, Condell Park NSW 2200) between 6am and 8pm (when not in the company of one, or both, of his parents), for the purpose of his lawful employment by the business known as “QACO Pty Ltd".
4.   All other conditions remain the same.
Catchwords: CRIME - bail - variation application – application to vary reporting and curfew conditions – variations not opposed, and granted - further application to dispense with electronic monitoring – applicant charged with being an accessory after the fact to murder, pervert the course of justice, giving false evidence to the Crime Commission – where applicant had previously offered to wear electronic monitoring – where further cost alleged to be beyond applicant’s means – application refused
Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013 (NSW) s 16B
Cases Cited: Nil
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Torek Ayoub (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Allison (Applicant)
D Beaufils (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Abbas Jacobs (Applicant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2020/45744
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

The applicant is charged with a number of offences arising out of the killing of Brayden Dillon who was shot and killed at his residence in Glenfield while he slept in his bed on 14 April 2017. A single male offender…

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 R v Ayoub

Details

AGLC: R v Ayoub [2020] NSWSC 154
Case: [2020] NSWSC 154
Decision Date: 03 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ayoub involved the applicant, who was facing charges of being an accessory after the fact to murder, perverting the course of justice, and giving false evidence to the Crime Commission. The matter came before the court for an application to vary the reporting and curfew conditions of the applicant’s bail and a subsequent application to dispense with electronic monitoring. The applicant argued that the electronic monitoring was too costly and beyond his means. The prosecution did not oppose the variations to the reporting and curfew conditions, and these variations were granted. However, the application to dispense with electronic monitoring was refused.

The legal issues before the court involved the balance between the need for the applicant to be subject to conditions that ensure public safety and the applicant’s financial situation. The court had to consider whether the cost of electronic monitoring was an undue hardship for the applicant, and whether this justified dispensing with the requirement entirely. The court also needed to ensure that any variations did not undermine the purpose of the bail conditions, which was to safeguard the community and ensure the applicant’s attendance in court.

The court reasoned that while the applicant’s financial situation was a legitimate consideration, the purpose of the electronic monitoring was to ensure the applicant’s compliance with the bail conditions. The court noted that the applicant had previously offered to wear the electronic monitoring device and found no evidence that the cost was beyond the applicant’s means. The court was also mindful of the seriousness of the charges and the need to prevent the applicant from interfering with the investigation or committing further offences. The court concluded that the application to dispense with electronic monitoring should be refused, as it was not satisfied that the cost was an undue hardship and the purpose of the bail conditions would be undermined.

The court ordered that the variations to the reporting and curfew conditions be allowed, and the application to dispense with electronic monitoring was refused. The applicant was required to continue wearing the electronic monitoring device as part of his bail conditions.

Orders