District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Habambo [2023] NSWDC 295 Hearing dates: 1 August 2023 Date of orders: 2 August 2023 Decision date: 02 August 2023 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Mahony SC DCJ Decision: Application for bail granted. For orders and bail conditions see [51].
Catchwords: CRIME – Release application – Ex-tempore judgment.
Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Cases Cited: El-Hili and Melville v R [2015] NSWCCA 146
R v Naizmand [2016] NSWSC 386
R v Smith [2023] NSWSC 36
Category: Principal judgment Parties: George Habambo (Applicant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)Representation: Counsel:
J Korn briefed by Korn Tlais Defence Lawyers (Applicant)
S Gul (Crown)
File Number(s): 2020/304824 Publication restriction: Nil.
JUDGMENT
-
This is my judgment in the matter of George Habambo and Office of The Director of Public Prosecutions. The applicant by Notice of Motion filed on 15 June 2023, seeks the following prayer for relief in;
“Order 1.
That the applicant George Habambo be admitted to bail on such conditions as are agreed between the parties and ratified by the Court or as the Court determines.”
There are other prayers for relief which I do not need to rehearse here.
-
The applicant relies on an affidavit of his solicitor Abdul Tlais, sworn on 26 July 2023. That affidavit sets out the following background, namely that following a jury trial in this Court, the applicant was found guilty of 28 charges against a single complainant, his now former wife. The matters for which he was found guilty include nine counts of common assault pursuant to s 61 of the Crimes Act 1900, 15 counts of intimidation pursuant to s 13(1) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007, one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm pursuant to s 56(1) of the Crimes Act, one count of damage property pursuant s 195(1A) of the Crimes Act, one count of choke and render incapable of resistance pursuant to s 371 of the Crimes Act and one count of suffocate without consent pursuant to s 37(1A) of the Act.
-
Following his conviction on 17 February 2023, the applicant was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment with a head sentence of 10 years and a non-parole period of six years. That sentence was in relation to 10 of the 28 counts for which he was found guilty. His earliest eligibility for release on parole will be 3 October 2028.
-
On 20 February 2023 a Notice of Intention to Appeal against both his conviction and sentence was filed and served. The affidavit then sets out the history of difficulties obtaining the transcript of the trial which took place over six weeks and comprised some 1,600 pages and took approximately eight months to be finalised and provided to the applicant’s legal representatives.
-
The deponent then sets out information relating to the applicant’s financial position as provided to him by the applicant, relating both to…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Habambo and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2023] NSWDC 295
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the appeal had a substantial prospect of success, the severity of the original offences, the risk of reoffending, and the impact of release on the community. The court also needed to weigh the presumption of innocence in the context of an appeal against conviction, as well as the potential prejudice to the appellant if bail was denied. The primary focus was on balancing these considerations against the fundamental right to liberty.
The court acknowledged the severity of the original offences but found that the appeal had a substantial prospect of success, primarily due to procedural errors during the trial that may have affected the outcome. The risk of reoffending was considered low given the specific circumstances of the original offences and the appellant's background. The court determined that the interests of justice favoured granting bail, as the potential prejudice to the appellant outweighed the concerns about flight risk and community safety. Consequently, the application for bail was granted, with specific conditions to ensure compliance and mitigate any risk of reoffending.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for bail granted. For orders and bail conditions see [51].
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.