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

1. 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.

2. 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

3. 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 rifle. He was wearing a dark coloured jumper and a black balaclava. He then fired 2 shots at the 'Cheeky Chocks' chicken shop. The male was seen to jolt back at the same time as the shots were heard.

Employees in the Real Estate office next door to the 'Cheeky Chooks’ chicken shop saw that the rear passenger side window of the Audi was down and another male was also holding a smaller firearm. This man was described as wearing a dark coloured bandana covering his nose and mouth and a dark hood over his head.

During the shots ABDELMALEK tried to get out of his van to run, and took his feet off the pedals. The van rolled forward for a short distance before ABDELMALEK jumped on the brakes. The male standing through the sunroof ducked back into the car, and the grey Audi accelerated harshly driving over a roundabout back onto Shaw Street.

Not long after this other witnesses saw a grey Audi driving at speed along Wolli St. Smoke could be seen coming from the wheel arches and the silhouettes of at least two people could be seen in the car. It was seen travelling North on Wolli St before turning onto Alston Street at a roundabout. The Audi accelerated harshly before taking a sharp left along Staples Street, almost colliding with a stop sign, before being parked on the side of the road.

At the time John ATTARD and Steven GARSIDE were installing a new front security door at 28 Staples Street. 3-4 minutes after they saw the car pull up a male voice yelled out to GARSIDE, 'Hey mate, have you got a spare oil can?

GARSIDE describes this male as being about 175-178cm tall, bald head, weathered, wrinkly about 35-40 years of age. The male was also clean shaven with a solid build.

GARSIDE replied, Nah mate I don't'. The male then turned around and walked in the direction of Kingsgrove Ave.

A short time later at about 9:45 Tony RIZZI was in his kitchen making a cup of coffee. He looked out the rear glass window into his backyard when he sale (sic) a male racing across the yard. RIZZI opened up the rear glass sliding door and walked down the 3 stairs into the backyard. RIZZI lost sight of the male so he turned left and walked around to the southern side of the house. He looked down the southern side and saw the same male. He was about halfway along the house and was facing towards a window. He appeared to be looking into RIZZI's house through the window.

RIZZI describes the male as being 27-35 years of age, 175cm tall, Middle Eastern appearance, slim athletic build with a shaved head, He was clean shaven and wearing a light multi-coloured t-shirt with dark coloured shorts.

RIZZI yelled out, 'What do you want? The male replied although RIZZI couldn't make out what he was saying. The male then started walking towards RIZZI and with his right hand removed what looked like a pistol from the waistband of his shorts. The man held the pistol in his right hand down by the front of his right leg.

The pistol was dark grey and the barrel was about 10cm in length. RIZZI took a few steps backward and the male took a few steps towards him, muttering as he did so. RIZZI took a few more steps back and the male continued walked (sic) past him before sprinting back across the backyard towards the driveway. The male then turned right and kept running down the driveway.

RIZZI then raced back up the steps inside his house. He locked the door and looked out of the front windows. He saw the same male running across Staples Street to the driveway of the house opposite - 40 Staples Street. At one stage the male slipped over, but got back up and ran down the driveway. RIZZI lost sight of the man, but could hear a banging sound. Around this time Anthony ANTONIOU was asleep in side 40 Staples Street and was woken by the sound of someone knocking on the door and a male voice calling out, 'Hello',

As RlZZI continued to look out onto Staples Street he noticed the grey Audi parked across the driveway of number 35, and could see the sunroof of the Audi was open and there was a small amount of smoke coming out.

The same male then came racing out of the driveway of number 40 Staples St holding what looked like a clear plastic soft drink bottle containing a clear liquid. The male threw the bottle into the sunroof and hovered around the driver's side of the vehicle for a few seconds before running around the back of the Audi and out of sight.

The smoke inside the Audi began to increase becoming heavy and turning black. Smoke and flames could also be seen coming out from the rear axle of the Audi. RIZZI then contacted '000' to notify police and the fire department.

Firemen arrived on scene at 9.54am and began to extinguish the grey Audi. While the car was being sprayed with water, Craig BENNETT the station commander at Campsie Fire Station opened the rear passenger door. Inside the car was a blue canvas bag with orange handles which he pulled out for salvage. BENNETT saw the butt and trigger of a rifle hanging out of the bag. Police were called over and the rifle was immediately secured. The rifle was later found to contain 1 round of ammunition in the chamber and 4 others loaded in the rifle. 1 further round of ammunition was found inside the bag.

A further search of the car located another rifle located stuck between the front passenger seat and the centre console, which contained a fired cartridge and 2 unfired cartridges, as well as 4 bullets in the rear foot wells. Located near the car on the roadway was a lighter and near the front driver's side wheel was the car's petrol cap. These items were seized as exhibits. Crime Scene Officers were also called and further items from the car were also seized. Included in the items located were a pair of sunglasses and a cigarette butt.

At 10:04 that day Russell SMITH who resides at 42 Staples Street returned home when he was stopped at a police road block. Smith could see the grey Audi which was being attended to by police and fireman. Smith went inside his house and was approached by Detectives a short time later, who asked if they could come through his house as they believed someone may have entered his backyard. Smith gave his consent for police to look around the premises.

As Smith and the Police were walking around the house, Smith noticed a hole in his side gate which had been put in for a cat had been enlarged. There were bits of broken timber panelling on the ground near the gate and the hole was now large enough for a person to fit through.

Smith then took police into a small granny flat on the back of the premises. The door of the granny flat which had been locked and secured was wide open and had been damaged. SMITH didn't notice anything unusual or out of place. SMITH also showed Police into a workshop located between the granny flat and the house. The door which was usually closed and locked was also open. Inside the workshop Smith noticed some items were out of place and that some cardboard boxes that had previously been on the table had been strewn on the floor.

Smith was later asked about whether he had had a can of Mr. Sheen, but was not sure.

Crime Scene officers attended later that day and found a small drop of blood in the kitchen area of the granny flat. Smith confirmed that he had never seen the bloodstain before and that no one else had been inside the granny flat recently.

At around 10-10.30am Nick TSAOUSIDIS walked outside his house on Laycock Street, BEXLEY NORTH and saw a Mr Sheen can lying on the ground. He picked it up and threw it into the back of a truck that a friend uses to collect scrap metal. CCTV footage from his neighbour's house at 35 Laycock Street was later reviewed and shows a person who appears to be AHSIN walk past and drop the can that is later picked up by TSAOUSIDIS.

The firearms and ammunition seized from the Audi were later examined by Police ballistics experts. The rifle found in the blue canvass bag with orange handles was identified as a 0.22 Short/Long/Long Rifle calibre Miroku model ML-22 repeating rifle. It was not in working order due to a broken firing pin. The 6 rounds of ammunition found in the rifle and bag were identified as being designed for use in weapons chambered for .22 long rifle calibre cartridges and suitable for use in this firearm.

The rifle found inside the Audi was identified as a .30-30 Winchester model 94 repeating rifle. It was test fired and in working order. The cartridges found in the firearm were identified as ammunition designed for use in weapons chambered for .30-30 Winchester calibre cartridges and suitable for use in this firearm.

The exhibits were subsequent (sic) analysed for the presence of DNA. DNA profiles located on the cigarette butt found in the Audi, the orange handles of the bag containing the rifle, the petrol cap of the Audi, the nozzle of the Mr Sheen can and the drop of blood located in the kitchen of the granny flat match the DNA profile of AHSIN.

Evidence of Isabella and Katia WILLIAMS

At this time AHSIN and BURKE had been living at 43 Warejee Street, KINGSGROVE, the home of Sonya WILLIAMS, and her daughters Isabella and Katia WILLIAMS.

AHSIN had met Isabella WILLIAMS in late 2013. They met up regularly and became close friends. Isabella knew AHSIN as Dee. Around the end of August 2014 Isabella met AHSIN's friend Michael BURKE who she knew as BURKY. Soon after AHSIN and BURKE began to stay at Isabella's home at 43 Warejee Street, KINGSGROVE. Around this time Isabella and AHSIN developed an intimate relationship.

Around a week after they moved in AHSIN and BURKE were arrested. BURKE was refused bail but AHSIN later was released and returned to 43 Warejee Street. Over the following days, AHSIN began to tell Isabella that he and BURKE had been involved in armed robberies. He said that he liked Isabella too much and did not want to lie about what he had done.

At first Isabella was shocked and thought that he was lying, but AHSIN used Google to search for news articles about armed robberies, showing her reports about the Rockdale Tennis Club, Forest Inn and Peakhurst Inn among others. He went on to give Isabella details of who was involved in a number of armed robberies and how they were committed.

Isabella and Katia also began to visit BURKE in prison. Initially he was angry when he found out that AHSIN had been talking about the robberies, but then began to talk more openly about them.

[IW 3/3] As a result of hanging out with AHSIN and BURKY, Isabella also met their friend George. [IW 3/4] She describes George as tall, with dark hair, dark eyebrows and dark eyes. He has a tattoo on his hand which says 'Hells Angels Sydney and a tattoo of a Hells Angels patch on his other forearm, as well as a tattoo of a number on his knuckles. [IW 5/42] She later found out that his name is George FTELIANOS.

[IW 3/5] At the time Isabella and Katia both worked at Cheeky Chooks. Her boss, Sam, was associated with the Comancheros.

[IW 3/6] [KW 4/5] On the night of 27 August 2014, Isabella and Katia Met up with AHSIN, BURKY, and some others at a hotel that they were staying in, and ended up staying for the whole night. [KW 4/6] At around 3am, Katia and BURKE picked up George brought him back to the hotel.

[IW 3/9] [KAW 4/6] In the morning Isabella, Katia, BURKE, George and some others went to the hotel buffet for breakfast.

[IW 3/9] Isabella recalls that Katia was supposed to start work at Cheeky Chooks at 9.30am. BURKY said to Katia, 'Do you want the day off?'

Katia replied, 'Yeah’ (with a smile).

BURKY said, 'So you want the day off?

Katia realised that BURKY was going to do something bad and so replied, 'Na, na, I’ll just work.'

BURKY then said, 'Na seriously, so you want the day off?'

KATIA replied, 'No.'

BURKY said, 'You're having the day off?’

Katia again said, 'No.'

George then said, 'We are going to go speak to this fucking Commo dog.'

[KW 4/7] Katia recalls saying that 'no one can cover me, my boss won't allow me to have the day off.' BURKE said, 'Fuck your boss you are going to have the day off. Everyone quickly finish your food and get up. We are going.'

[IW 3/10] They all finished their breakfast and then AHSIN, BURKY and George drove Katia, Isabella and another friend back to Warejee Street, AHSIN, BURKY and George then left in the car. [KW 5/21] BURKE said to Katia, I’ll drop you at work so don't leave until I get back.' Katia had to open the store, so she had no intention of waiting,

[IW 3/11] Katia then got ready and left for work. A short time later she called Isabella and told her that the shop had been 'shot up'.

[KW 1/4] [KW 5/23] Katia had been walking along Kingsgrove Avenue when she heard gunshots, which sounded as though they had come from the intersection in front of Cheeky Chooks. [KW 1/6] When she got inside the shop, Katia could see a number of bullet holes.

[IW 3/12] As Isabella got ready to go to the shop, BURKY arrived. Isabella told him what had happened and BURKY drove her to Kingsgrove Road, dropping her near Cheeky Chooks.

[IW5/48] Isabella later told Police that when BURKY arrived, George was with him. They were both sweating - their faces covered and their clothes soaked.

[IW 3/14] Isabella later overheard AHSIN saying, 'fucking shoes - fucking chicken shop' while he was scrubbing his white Nike shoes. Katia later asked AHSIN what had happened to his white Air Max shoes. [KW 4/12] He told her that he poured cement on them to distract Police dogs from the scent.

[IW 3/14] Isabella also overheard conversations between AHSIN and George where they discussed a dispute between the Hells Angels and Commancheros, and that George was 'hell bent on getting the commos'.

George thought that it was funny that they had used a Commancheros car (Aussie Al who they got the car from is a Commanchero) to shoot the shop, and he knew that Aussie AI would be in the shit because his car was used to shoot up a place linked to the Commos. [IW 5/50] Isabella overheard AHSIN talking on the phone to Aussie AL AHSIN was laughing and said, 'Fuck off you fat cunt, come and find me’.

[KW 5/30] Katia overheard AHSIN talking to either George or Moey about how they had to burn the car, because AHSIN 'hit the gutter and stuffed the front of it’.

[IW 3/15] AHSIN, BURKY and George later told Isabella that they had done the shooting at Cheeky Chooks. They said that they had done the shooting with BURKY. AHSIN had been driving, BURKY was in the front seat and George was in the back. AHSIN and BURKY were laughing and said that George 'can't shoot for shit’. BURKY said that George had popped up through the sun roof of the Audi to shoot. They said that George 'had to rotate the gun or something because it's an old gun' and 'George was so shit that he flicked the gun and the bullet came out and didn't hit anything so he had to do it again'. They said that BURKY had a gun as well but didn't use it.

[IW 5/51] About a month after the shooting AHSIN began joking openly about it, saying to Katia, 'Do you want the day off?' He would also joke about George not being able to shoot. George would reply, 'Fuck off the gun was fucked’.

[IW 5/52] At first BURKE was angry that AHSIN had told them about the shooting, but over a few visits he also began to joke about it, saying to Katia, 'Do you want the day off work?’ and 'George can't fucking shoot for shit.'

[IW 3/16] Shown stills from the CCTV footage from Cheeky Chooks at the time of the shooting, Isabella states that the grey car in the images looks like the Audi R6 that AHSIN had shown her before. Shown stills from the CCTV footage from Laycock Street, Isabella identified the person in the purple basketball singlet as AHSIN. AHSIN has the same build, stature, colour and tattoos as shown in the images.

4. The material tendered by the Crown also included a copy of the respondent’s criminal history. In 2008, the respondent was fined and placed on a bond pursuant to s. 9 of the Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act 1999 (NSW) for a period of 3 years in respect of a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. More recently, on 29 January 2015, the applicant was sentenced to a non-parole period of 2 years and 8 months imprisonment in respect of a charge of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. He is currently serving that sentence.

THE RESPONDENT’S CASE

5. Tendered in the respondent’s case were the following documents:

1. an affidavit of Shalini Perera affirmed on 25 August 2017;

2. an affidavit of Olivia Tolley, solicitor, affirmed on 25 August 2017 annexing letters of support from Sally El Falak and Stephen Hancock;

3. statements by the Crown witnesses Isabella Williams and Katia Williams.

6. The affidavit of Ms Perera established that the proceedings against the respondent remain before the Local Court. An application has been made pursuant to s. 91 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) for an order that witnesses attend for cross-examination at a committal hearing. That application is to be heard on 22 September. In the event that it is granted, the proceedings will obviously be further adjourned.

7. The letter from Ms El Falak establishes that she is presently engaged to the respondent, having been in a relationship with him since approximately April 2013. She confirmed that if released, the respondent is able to reside with her and her family. The letter from Mr Hancock confirms that in the event that the respondent is released he will have casual employment available to him through Mr Hancock’s labour hire company.

THE PRESENT APPLICATION

8. The application before this Court is to be determined afresh and is not an appeal from, or a review of, the decision of the primary judge: See DPP v Hourigan [2017] NSWCCA 170 at [8].

9. It was common ground between the parties that the provisions of s. 16A of the Act applied to the present application. Accordingly this Court must refuse bail unless the respondent shows cause why his or her detention is not justified. The principles surrounding that requirement were set out in Moukhallaletti v The Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2013] NSWCCA 314 at [50] and following, and in Hourigan at [9].

SUBMISSIONS OF THE CROWN

10. In support of the submission that cause had not been shown, the Crown relied upon:

1. the respondent’s alleged association with an outlaw motorcycle gang;

2. the fact that the respondent is alleged to have been in the back seat of the vehicle at the time of the offending, and is further alleged to have attempted to fire a firearm himself;

3. the admissions said to have been made by the respondent regarding his involvement in the shooting;

4. the fact that the shooting took place on a busy street and amounted to the commission of an extremely serious offence which will necessarily result in the imposition of a significant custodial sentence in the event that the respondent is found guilty; and

5. the absence of any reliance by the respondent upon “special hardship”, such that the need to obtain urgent medical treatment which is not available to him in custody.

11. The Crown further submitted that even if cause was shown, there were unacceptable risks that the respondent would:

1. fail to appear;

2. commit a further serious offence;

3. endanger the safety of victims, individuals or the community; and

4. interfere with witnesses or evidence.

12. In respect of the unacceptable risks in (ii), (iii) and (iv) above, the Crown relied upon the respondent’s criminal record and, in particular, the circumstances surrounding the offending for which he was sentenced in 2015.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

13. In support of the submission that cause had been shown, counsel for the respondent relied upon:

1. what were said to be “significant weaknesses” in the Crown case;

2. the unexplained delay in charging the respondent; and

3. the fact that the respondent’s parole status placed him a “unique position”, and had the effect of reducing any risk.

14. Both orally and in writing, counsel for the respondent submitted that it was clear that the Crown case against the respondent was entirely dependent upon the account provided by the witnesses Isabella Williams and Katia Williams. It was submitted that an analysis of their respective statements, and the circumstances in which those statements were made, revealed a number of important considerations.

15. It was submitted, in particular, that when speaking with police in the immediate aftermath of the incident giving rise to the charge against the respondent, neither witness made any allegation against the respondent (or indeed any co-accused), and that it was not until some months later that they each gave an account to police which purported to link the respondent to what had occurred. Counsel also placed particular significance on the fact that it had emerged in 2016 that the allegation made by each witness against the respondent may have been motivated by a desire, on the part of each of them, to remain at liberty following their admitted involvement in other offending. Counsel further submitted that the statements of the two witnesses, even though they recorded admissions allegedly made by the respondent, did so in inherently vague and imprecise terms which necessarily affected the weight which might be given to that evidence. He also highlighted what he submitted were fundamental inconsistencies in their respective accounts. It was submitted that in all of these circumstances, the accounts given by the witnesses were inherently unreliable and that, if the matter went to trial, the evidence would inevitably attract a warning pursuant to s. 165 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

16. Counsel for the respondent further submitted that, quite apart from the issues arising from the statements of those two witnesses:

1. there was no positive identification of the person responsible for firing the shots, or of the passengers, by any civilian witness at the scene;

2. there was a complete absence of any forensic evidence linking the respondent to the commission of the offence; and

3. those persons who did observe events around the time of the shooting had given little more than generic descriptions of those involved, and had not provided a description of any participant which was consistent with involvement by the respondent.

17. Counsel for the respondent also relied on the fact that there had been a significant delay between the time at which the offence occurred, and the time at which the respondent was charged. Whilst counsel acknowledged that, generally speaking, delay in matters of this nature centres upon the time following arrest as opposed to the time preceding it, he submitted that the delay in the present case was nevertheless significant because (inter alia) it had the potential to frustrate the applicant’s release on parole.

18. On the assumption that the Court was persuaded that cause had been shown, counsel’s submissions then turned to the assessment of various bail concerns. In doing so, counsel acknowledged that the respondent’s demonstrated history of violence was a relevant factor, and “unquestionably” gave rise to a risk. However, he submitted that such history was a relatively short one, and that this was not a case where the respondent had been incarcerated on multiple occasions, only to continue to offend.

19. In dealing with each of the relevant factors prescribed in s. 18 of the Act, counsel’s ultimate submission was that any bail concern(s) could be appropriately addressed by the imposition of one or more conditions.

CONSIDERATION

20. The show cause requirement set out in s. 16A of the Act does not impose an onus upon the respondent to demonstrate special or exceptional circumstances. What it requires is that the respondent point to factors that, either alone or in combination, support a conclusion that his continued detention is not justified: Hourigan at [22].

21. The submissions of both parties in respect of this issue focussed upon the strength of the Crown case. Clearly, the Crown case against the respondent is based largely, if not solely, on the evidence of the two witnesses to whom we have referred. As the submissions of counsel for the respondent made clear, there will necessarily be a number of issues arising as to the reliability of that evidence. It seems clear that should the matter proceed to trial, the evidence will attract a warning as to its potential unreliability.

22. At the same time, it is not the role of this Court to predict, much less definitively determine, how the various issues arising from the evidence of those witnesses will be resolved. It would be impossible for the Court to do so. However the inescapable fact, which counsel for the respondent acknowledged, is that if the evidence of the two witnesses in question is accepted, the respondent will inevitably be convicted, and a lengthy custodial sentence imposed. In the circumstances, and notwithstanding the issues to which the Court’s attention was directed, we are not prepared to accept the proposition that the Crown case is a weak one.

23. We also accept that the evidence establishes that there was a delay in charging the respondent over his alleged involvement in the incident which appears to have been attributable to the time taken to obtain various statements from the two witnesses in question. Whilst that is a relevant factor, we do not consider that it is one deserving of any significant weight.

24. In all of these circumstances we are not satisfied that the show cause requirement is not overcome. Further, even if we had reached a contrary view, it remains the case that there are two significant risks which, in our view, could not be appropriately addressed by the imposition of any condition(s).

25. Firstly, there is, in light of the applicant’s criminal history, a clear risk of further violent offending. The Court was informed in the course of oral submissions that the applicant is currently undertaking courses in custody addressed to rehabilitation from drug use and violence. The fact that he is undertaking those courses at the present time reflects the fact that these remain ongoing issues.

26. Secondly, and again bearing in mind the respondent’s history of violent offending, there is necessarily a risk (which counsel for the respondent acknowledged) of interference with witnesses. This is particularly so in circumstances where the evidence of the two witnesses to whom we have made referred effectively constitutes the entirety of the Crown case against the respondent. We are unable to conclude, in light of the respondent’s criminal history, that such a risk can be properly addressed by the imposition of any condition(s).

27. It was for these reasons that the Court granted the Crown’s application.

**********

Decision last updated: 11 December 2017