R v Feda - [2025] NSWSC 638

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Feda [2025] NSWSC 638
Hearing dates: 18 June 2025
Date of orders: 19 June 2025
Decision date: 19 June 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Schmidt AJ
Decision:
Bail refused.

Catchwords:
BAIL – multiple bail applications – Bail Act 2013 (NSW) s 74 – whether there are grounds to hear a further bail application in circumstances where there is a change in the identity of the surety, the sum offered and more information about the Crown’s case – s 74 satisfied
BAIL – charge of supplying a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, direct activities of criminal group and deal with proceeds of crime – show cause offence – cause is not shown

Legislation Cited:
Bail Act 2013 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
McAndrew v Regina [2016] NSWCCA 58
R v BNS [2016] NSWSC 350
R v Fallon (a pseudonym) [2017] NSWSC 1796
R v Feda (unreported 15 October 2025)
R v Goodwin [2015] NSWSC 2107
R v Najem [2015] NSWSC 2108
Tsintzas v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2017] NSWCCA 172

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Mouhamed Feda (Applicant)
Crown
Representation:
Counsel:
B Barrack (Applicant)
L Ernst (Crown)
Solicitors:
Abbas & Co Lawyers (Applicant)
ODPP New South Wales (Crown)

File Number(s): 2025/135442
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

In June 2024 Mr Feda was arrested and charged with offences under s 25(2) of the Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) which attract maximum penalties of life imprisonment. As well as offences under s 93T(4A) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) which attract maximum penalties of 15 years imprisonment and offences under s 193C(1) of knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime, which attract maximum penalties of 5 years imprisonment.
He was bail refused and on 11 October 2024 Chen J refused his bail application, concluding that he had not shown cause why his detention was not justified, as s 16A of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) required: R v Feda (unreported 15 October 2025).
Mr Feda has made a further bail application, which must be refused unless he establishes that grounds for a further application specified in s 74 exist. That they were established was disputed, as was whether he has shown cause why his detention was not justified. That he has established that he does not pose unacceptable risks was also in issue: s 19.

The proper construction of s 74

The cases the parties advanced put in issue the proper construction of s 74(3), which relevantly provides:

“(3)   For the purposes of this section, the grounds for a further release application are—
(a)   …
(b)   material information relevant to the grant of bail is to be presented in the application that was not presented to the court in the previous application, or
(c)   circumstances relevant to the grant of bail have changed since the previous application was made, or
(d)   …”

Its construction was considered in R v BNS [2016]…

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 Feda

Details

AGLC: R v Feda [2025] NSWSC 638
Case: [2025] NSWSC 638
Decision Date: 19 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Feda, the appellant applied for bail on multiple occasions, each time seeking changes to the existing bail conditions. The court was required to determine whether there were grounds to hear the latest application, considering the alterations in the surety, the amount offered, and additional information about the Crown's case. The primary legal issue revolved around whether section 74 of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) was satisfied, which pertains to the circumstances under which a further bail application may be heard.

The court considered whether there had been a change in the circumstances warranting a reconsideration of bail, specifically focusing on the change in surety identity, the increased sum offered, and new information about the Crown's case. The court held that section 74 was satisfied as there were sufficient grounds to consider the application. However, in relation to the substantive bail application, the court found that the appellant had not demonstrated a sufficient cause to rebut the presumption against bail. The serious nature of the charges, including supplying a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, involvement in direct activities of a criminal group, and dealing with the proceeds of crime, weighed against granting bail.

The court ultimately denied the appellant's application for bail, emphasising that the appellant had not shown sufficient cause to overcome the presumption against granting bail for such serious offences. The court's decision was grounded in the weighty considerations of public safety and the nature of the charges. The final orders confirmed the denial of bail and outlined the reasons for this decision, reiterating the serious implications of the alleged criminal activities.

Orders