R v Bazouni (Release Application)

[2019] NSWDC 757

District Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Bazouni (Release Application) [2019] NSWDC 757

Hearing dates:

12 December 2019, 17 December 2019

Date of orders:

17 December 2019

Decision date:

17 December 2019

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Weinstein SC DCJ

Decision:

Application for release on bail

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail application after offender detained
BAIL – special or exceptional circumstances - where appeal is most likely to succeed

Legislation Cited:

Bail Act 2013 NSW
Crimes Act 1900 NSW
Criminal Appeal Rules No 2

Cases Cited:

El-Hilli and Melville v R [2015] NSWCCA 146
Maitland v R; Macdonald v R [2019] NSWCCA 32
Obeid v R (No 2) NSWCCA 321
Petroulias v R [2010] NSWCCA 95

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Regina (Crown)
Mr John Bazouni (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel:
Mr R A Kimbell (Crown)

 

Mr M McHugh SC (Offender)
Mr M Gleeson (Offender)

  Solicitors:
Ms J. Menzies (Crown)
Ms A. Sarmed (Offender)

File Number(s):

2015/00068058

Publication restriction:

Nil

Judgment

1. On 1 November 2019, the offender was found guilty by a jury of five counts of dishonestly obtaining a financial benefit by deception contrary to section 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 and one count of attempting to dishonestly obtain a financial benefit by deception contrary to sections 192E(1)(b)/344A(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. On that date I convicted him, and stood the matter over for sentence.

2. On 12 December 2019, the matter came before me on sentence. On that date the offender’s senior counsel Mr McHugh made an application for his release on bail.

3. The offender seeks release pending appeal in respect of his conviction. He does so on the basis that his appeal is “most likely to succeed” (see below). A Notice of Intention to Appeal was lodged at the Supreme Court on 11 December 2019. It has since been amended and is exhibit 2 on this application. The proposed appeal grounds are as follows:-

1. The guilty verdicts were unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence; and

2. His Honour erred by directing the jury, on an element of the offence, that they could be satisfied that the alleged dishonesty could be proved by mere recklessness.

4. The emphasis on the release application is on ground (b) noted above.

5. The offender submits that the trial judge, after having discussed with counsel the written directions to be given to the jury (and which became MFI 16 at trial), gave those directions accordingly. It is the case that the written directions were extensively discussed with both counsel over weeks, and that the written directions were provided to them well in advance of summing up for their comment. It is also the case that no objection was taken by either counsel to MFI 16.

6. The offender points to the suggested direction in the New South Wales Judicial Commission Bench Book, and in particular:-

You must not only find beyond reasonable doubt that the accused acted dishonestly in deceiving [the victim] but also that [he/she] knew that [his/her]…