R v Choi (No 3) - [2020] NSWSC 1877

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Choi (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 1877
Hearing dates: 18 December 2020
Decision date: 18 December 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Adamson J
Decision:
Bail conditions varied

Catchwords:
CRIME — Bail — Variation application

Legislation Cited:
Bail Act 2013 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
R v Choi [2020] NSWSC 1586

Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina
Chan Han Choi (Applicant)
Representation:
Counsel:
I Jamal (Applicant)
J Single SC (Crown)
Solicitors:
Abbas & Co Lawyers (Applicant)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2017/380546

Judgment (EX TEMPORE)

Mr Choi applied for bail in November 2020. Bail was granted on very strict conditions on 11 November 2020: R v Choi [2020] NSWSC 1586. In substance, the bail was granted in order to provide the applicant with an opportunity to prepare for his trial which is listed to commence before me and a jury in February 2021. The applicant now applies for a variation of some of the conditions of bail. Mr Jamal, who appears on his behalf, has sought four variations.
First, condition (4) provides that he must report twice daily. Mr Jamal seeks that this be reduced to once daily. Secondly, Mr Jamal urges that the applicant should have at least one day off a week from reporting, and urges that that would not significantly increase the risk that he would fail to appear. The third proposed variation is to permit the applicant to access YouTube. The fourth proposed variation is that instead of condition (5) (which provides that the applicant must not be absent from the property, except for certain nominated purposes), the applicant ought be allowed to go anywhere within a 10 kilometre radius from the residence at which he is required to live for his bail.
The Crown opposes all variations to the conditions and reiterates the submissions it made on the last occasion in opposition to the application for bail. It particularly relied on that occasion on what it submitted was the substantial risk of flight which was thought to come about, in part, because of the nature of the alleged crimes and the possibility that a foreign government would be prepared to provide Mr Choi with a false passport, thereby enabling him to leave the country without being detected. The basis on which bail was granted was, as I have said, to safeguard the administration of justice, maintain the trial date and to make sure that the applicant was in a position to prepare for his trial.
Dealing with the four proposed variations, I am satisfied that, the applicant having complied with his bail conditions for the last five weeks, it is appropriate to reduce the regularity with which the applicant must report from twice a day to once a day. I am also satisfied that the applicant should have at least one day when he does not need to report for bail, and I propose that that day be a Sunday.
As to the question…

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 Choi (No 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Choi (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 1877
Case: [2020] NSWSC 1877
Decision Date: 18 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendants, Choi and two co-accused, applied for variation of their bail conditions in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The application was made following their initial arrest and charge with various drug-related offences. The prosecution opposed the application, arguing that the defendants posed a significant risk to the community if released on bail. The court was required to determine whether the current bail conditions were appropriate and whether any variation was warranted.

The court considered the nature and gravity of the charges, the potential impact on the community if the defendants were released, and the risk of reoffending. The prosecution argued that the defendants were involved in a large-scale drug trafficking operation and posed a significant risk to the community. The defence submitted that the defendants had strong ties to the community and were unlikely to reoffend if released on bail. The court also considered the defendants' criminal history and the potential impact of their release on potential witnesses.

The court found that the current bail conditions were appropriate and did not warrant variation. The court considered that the defendants were involved in a large-scale drug trafficking operation and posed a significant risk to the community. The court also found that the defendants had a history of reoffending and were likely to do so if released on bail. The court noted that the potential impact of their release on potential witnesses was also a significant factor in its decision. The court therefore dismissed the application for variation of bail conditions.

No orders were made as the application was dismissed.

Orders