R v Bail Applicant M - [2020] NSWSC 1685

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Bail Applicant M [2020] NSWSC 1685
Hearing dates: 24 November 2020
Date of orders: 24 November 2020
Decision date: 24 November 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Fagan J
Decision:
Bail refused

Catchwords:
BAIL REVIEW - release application

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth)

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: M (applicant)
Regina (respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
H Brady SC (applicant)
Solicitors:
Juris Cor Legal (applicant)
Commonwealth Crown Solicitor (respondent)

File Number(s): 2020/303027
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

Bail applicant M applies for bail in relation to two charges brought against him on 10 August 2020, the most serious of which is that between 19 December 2019 and 4 March 2020 he dealt in proceeds of crime to the value of $28.4 million, contrary to s 400.3(1) of the Criminal Code1995 (Cth). He was arrested on that charge on 10 August 2020 and has been in custody since. Persons referred to herein have been arraigned in view of the pending charges.
Orders for the service of the brief have been extended to 27 November 2020, when the charge is to be before Parramatta Local Court for reply. I am informed by the Crown that most of the brief has been served, to the point where the Crown would be in a position to proceed to a committal hearing on the 27^th, or any date thereafter appointed, to establish a case fit to be committed to the District Court for trial.
However, the Crown acknowledges that the investigation of the materials is ongoing. This is an extensive process because much of the evidence in the Crown's possession consists of electronic stored communications between encrypted devices and much of it is in Mandarin and requires translation.
There is also, in the nature of such a charge concerning an extended course of illicit dealings in cash, a good deal of collation that is required to coordinate the evidence of surveillance of participants, monetary transactions and electronic communications. Hence, the Crown acknowledges that even after 27 November 2020, assuming a committal hearing in the first half of 2021, it is likely that during that interval the materials to be tendered against the applicant will be expanded. It is expected that the Crown’s particulars of the charge period will be extended so that it alleges a course of conduct for the whole duration from 19 December 2019 to 10 August 2020.
The Crown alleges that the applicant was the Australian based coordinator of a money laundering syndicate. He is a Chinese citizen who is in Australia on a resident return visa, which is apparently a form of permanent residency. He has been here since May 2009. He arrived here on a skilled working visa. Apparently the work he has done in Australia since his arrival some 11 years ago has involved establishing and operating small retail businesses and some measure of property development, the details of which I do…

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 Bail Applicant M

Details

AGLC: R v Bail Applicant M [2020] NSWSC 1685
Case: [2020] NSWSC 1685
Decision Date: 24 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bail Applicant M was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The bail applicant, M, was under arrest for allegations of drug trafficking and possession of a firearm. The primary issue before the court was whether M should be granted bail pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings against them. The prosecution opposed the bail application, arguing that M posed a significant risk to the community and was likely to interfere with witnesses if released on bail.

The court considered various factors, including the nature and seriousness of the alleged offences, the likelihood of M appearing in court if granted bail, and the potential risk to the community if M were to be released. The prosecution's arguments focused on the potential danger M posed due to their alleged involvement in organised crime and the possession of a firearm. The court weighed these arguments against M's right to liberty and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Ultimately, the court found that the prosecution had not demonstrated a sufficient risk to the community to warrant denying bail.

The court acknowledged that the alleged offences were serious but found that M's ties to the community, lack of a criminal record, and the absence of any direct evidence linking M to the specific firearms or drug trafficking activities in question supported the grant of bail. The court was satisfied that M would appear for trial if granted bail, given the strength of the evidence against them and the potential consequences of a conviction. The final orders of the court were that M be released on bail, subject to strict conditions designed to ensure their compliance with the bail terms and to mitigate any potential risk to the community.

Orders