Legal Research
Cases
R v Isaac

R v Isaac

Case [2023] NSWSC 22 31 January 2023

Bail

Limitation Periods

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Isaac [2023] NSWSC 22
Hearing dates: 23 January 2023
Date of orders: 23 January 2023
Decision date: 31 January 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Yehia J
Decision:
Bail is granted

Catchwords:
BAIL — Release Application — Consideration of s 22B of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) — Where applicant satisfies “special circumstances” threshold — Where applicant’s wife brutally murdered — Where the applicant has a role in the arrangements for the care of his children — Bail granted

Legislation Cited:
Bail Act 2013 (NSW) ss 17, 18 and 22B
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 93T(4A)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) ss 25(1) and 25(2)
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) s 51(2A)

Cases Cited:
Bobbi v R [2021] NSWCCA 44
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Van Gestal [2022] NSWSC 973
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Zaiter [2016] NSWCCA 247
El-Hilli and Melville v R [2015] NSWCCA 146
Gould v R (Cth) [2021] NSWCCA 27
R v Khayat (No 11) [2019] NSWSC 1320
R v Lago [2014] NSWSC 660
R v Naizmand [2016] NSWSC 836
R v Peter Tsallas [2017] NSWSC 64
R v Tsintzas [2017] NSWCCA 172
R v Watson [2017] ACTSC 311
Raad v R [2015] NSWSC 532

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Mikkel Isaac (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
O Samin (Australian Criminal & Family Lawyers) (Applicant)
S Makin (Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2023/00021367

Judgment

The applicant, Mikkel Issac, pleaded guilty in the Local Court to several serious offences, including the following:

Supplying a prohibited drug not less than the large commercial quantity, contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) (“DMTA”). The applicant supplied between 1000g and 1100g of cocaine;

Knowingly directing the activity of a criminal group, contrary to s 93T(4A) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (“Crimes Act”);

Supplying a pistol without a licence, contrary to s 51(2A) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) (“Firearms Act”); and

Supplying a prohibited drug, namely, 8655.8g of cannabis, contrary to s 25(1) of the DMTA.

The proceedings are not yet listed for sentence. The parties agree that the sentencing proceedings will take place towards the end of July 2023.
The applicant was arrested on 10 March 2021 and has been in custody since that time. Given his plea of guilty, entered at the earliest opportunity, and his acknowledgement that the inevitable sentence will be a lengthy term of full-time imprisonment, he has not previously applied for bail.
On 23 January 2023, the applicant applied for bail in respect of the offences listed above. The Crown opposed bail. It was accepted that the applicant bears the onus of establishing “special or exceptional circumstances”, pursuant to s 22B of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) (“Bail Act” or “the Act”).
I received evidence and heard submissions on 23 January 2023. On that date, I determined that bail should…

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 Isaac

Details

AGLC: R v Isaac [2023] NSWSC 22
Case: [2023] NSWSC 22
Decision Date: 31 January 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Isaac, the applicant sought bail pending the resolution of charges related to his wife's death. The dispute involved whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant bail under section 22B of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW). The applicant argued that special circumstances existed, warranting his release from custody. The applicant contended that, despite the serious nature of the charges, his role in arranging care for his children constituted a special circumstance that favoured his release.

The legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had satisfied the "special circumstances" threshold as required by the Bail Act. The court was tasked with determining if the applicant's role in the arrangements for his children's care constituted a special circumstance that would warrant the exercise of the court's discretion to grant bail. The applicant's counsel submitted that the special circumstances provision was intended to prevent injustice, and in this case, the injustice of removing the applicant from his children's lives without compelling necessity.

The court found that the applicant had indeed satisfied the "special circumstances" threshold. The judge accepted that the applicant's involvement in the arrangements for his children's care constituted a special circumstance. The court noted that the applicant's role in this regard was significant and that his absence would likely cause considerable hardship to his children. The court concluded that the special circumstances provision was intended to ensure that the interests of the community and the applicant's children were balanced, and that in this case, the applicant's release on bail was in the best interests of all parties involved. The court granted the applicant bail.

Orders