R v Ftelianos - [2017] NSWCCA 211

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ftelianos [2017] NSWCCA 211
Hearing dates: 28 August 2017
Date of orders: 28 August 2017
Decision date: 28 August 2017
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL
Davies J
Bellew J
Decision:
The Crown’s detention application is granted.

Catchwords: BAIL – Crown application for detention – Where respondent charged with firing a firearm with reckless disregard for the safety of any person – Whether cause shown – Whether unacceptable risks – Crown application granted
Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013 (NSW)
Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions v Hourigan [2017] NSWCCA 170
Moukhallaletti v The Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2013] NSWCCA 314
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina – Applicant
George Ftelianos – Respondent
Representation:
Counsel:
E Balodis – Applicant
J Brock - Respondent
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) – Applicant
O’Brien Solicitors - Respondent

File Number(s): 2017/179282

Judgment

THE COURT: On 15 August 2017 George Ftelianos (“the respondent”) was released on bail, subject to a number of conditions. On 22 august 2017, the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions (“the Crown”) made an application pursuant to s. 50 of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) (“the Act”) for the respondent’s detention.
The Court heard the Crown’s application on 28 August 2017. At the conclusion of that hearing, the Court ordered that the application be granted, and indicated that its reasons would be published in due course. Those reasons now follow.

THE CROWN CASE AGAINST THE RESPONDENT

The respondent has been charged with an offence of firing a firearm with reckless disregard for the safety of any person contrary to s. 93GA of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The material tendered by the Crown on the present application included a case statement which is in the following terms:

The Cheeky Chooks takeaway shop is located at 5/231 Kingsgrove Rd, KINGSGROVE. The business has been owned and operated by Gulcan FEVZI and her fiance Sam MASKALAH since October 2013. In August 2014 the shop employed Katia WILLIAMS and Bella WILLIAMS.
At about 9:30am on 28 August 2014 the store was due to open. A large number of people were on Kingsgrove Road, travelling to and from the train station, attending local businesses and travelling in vehicles.
Nagy ABDELMALEK and his wife Nerrnin MINA were driving along Kingsgrove Road in a van that ABDELMALEK uses to convey children to and from school. As he came to a stop at the intersection a grey Audi station wagon driving on Shaw Street performed a U turn coming to a stop directly in front of him with the grey Audi facing his car.
The sunroof of the Audi was open and the barrel of a gun could be seen poking up from the interior of the car. A male then stood up from inside the car through the sunroof, holding what appeared to be a…

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 Ftelianos

Details

AGLC: R v Ftelianos [2017] NSWCCA 211
Case: [2017] NSWCCA 211
Decision Date: 28 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a Crown application for the detention of the respondent, Ftelianos, who was charged with firing a firearm with reckless disregard for the safety of any person. The court had to decide whether the Crown had demonstrated sufficient cause to justify the respondent's detention and whether his release posed unacceptable risks. In considering the Crown's application, the court examined the evidence presented regarding the respondent's criminal history, the nature of the offence, and the potential danger he posed to the community.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Crown had shown sufficient cause for the respondent's detention and whether his release would create unacceptable risks to the community. The court considered the severity of the offence, the respondent's criminal history, and the potential risk he posed to the community if released. The Crown argued that the respondent's previous convictions for violent offences, coupled with the seriousness of the current charge, demonstrated a pattern of behaviour that warranted detention. The respondent's legal representative contended that the Crown had not established sufficient cause for detention and that the respondent's release could be managed through appropriate bail conditions.

The court found that the Crown had demonstrated sufficient cause for the respondent's detention. The court considered the respondent's previous convictions for violent offences and the seriousness of the current charge, which involved firing a firearm with reckless disregard for the safety of any person. The court concluded that the respondent's release posed unacceptable risks to the community, given the potential for him to reoffend. The court granted the Crown's application for the respondent's detention. The court ordered that the respondent remain in custody until further order of the court.

Orders