R v Daniel - [2014] NSWSC 1968

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	R v Daniel
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2014] NSWSC 1968
Hearing Date(s):	23 June 2014
Decision Date:	23 June 2014
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Button J
Decision:	Bail refused.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – bail – release application – supply of prohibited drug – ex tempore judgment – s 74 of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) – joint position of the parties with regard to s 74 – risk that the applicant will fail to appear – strong Crown case – bail refused
Legislation Cited:	Bail Act 2013 (NSW)
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Regina Darren Daniel
Representation:	Solicitors: Legal Aid New South Wales (Applicant) Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2014/00112654

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

This is an application for bail by Darren Daniel. The applicant faces a number of charges said to have been committed between 21 February 2013 and 30 April 2013. It is said that the applicant engaged in the supply of a particular prohibited drug, which I infer is in the nature of an amphetamine. The allegation is that to a degree he was something of a street-level dealer with regard to very small quantities but, eventually, things progressed to the stage where he allegedly, on four occasions, supplied a large commercial quantity of that drug, indeed substantially above what is the large commercial quantity. The maximum penalty, therefore, is imprisonment for life, with a standard non-parole period of fifteen years.
It is alleged that, on 27 February 2013, the applicant supplied 130 grams of the drug in the form of 500 tablets in return for $12,500. On 8 March 2013 it is alleged he supplied 137 grams of the same drug in return for $12,500 in cash.
The Crown case is that a great deal of the criminal allegations were electronically recorded by way of video surveillance, electronic recordings of things said by people and, indeed, SMS messages sent to and by the applicant.
It is alleged that on arrest the applicant had $1100 cash in his possession, a number of street deals in his possession, plastic bags suggestive of dealing, and also cannabis leaf was found in a motor vehicle.
I can proceed on the basis (and his solicitor has not sought to persuade me otherwise) that the Crown case is very strong.
For the purposes of s 17(3)(b), it can be said that the seriousness of the offences derives from the maximum penalty to which I have referred, which speaks for itself.
Furthermore, if the applicant is convicted, it is inevitable that he will spend many years in gaol.
Before I go further, I should say that s 74 of the Bail Act 2013 applies to this application, the applicant having been refused bail by Beech-Jones J in September last year.
Without delving into the intricacies of s 74 of the new Act, the parties have been content for me to approach it on the basis that “information before the court” has changed: in particular,…

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 Daniel

Details

AGLC: R v Daniel [2014] NSWSC 1968
Case: [2014] NSWSC 1968
Decision Date: 23 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Daniel involved an application for the release of the applicant on bail pending his criminal trial for the supply of a prohibited drug. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant argued that he should be granted bail, while the prosecution opposed the application, asserting that the applicant should remain in custody due to the strength of the evidence against him and the risk he posed if released.

The central legal issues the court needed to address were whether the applicant met the criteria for bail under the Bail Act 2013 (NSW), particularly in light of the risk of non-appearance and the strength of the prosecution's case. The court also considered the joint position of the parties regarding the application of section 74 of the Bail Act, which pertains to the presumption of innocence and the weight that should be given to the strength of the case against the applicant.

The court found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for bail. It was established that the prosecution had a strong case against the applicant, with sufficient evidence to potentially secure a conviction. Additionally, there was a significant risk that the applicant would fail to appear in court if released on bail. The court was persuaded by the joint position of the parties, which acknowledged the strength of the prosecution's case and the risk of non-appearance. Consequently, the application for bail was refused.

Orders