R v Kaddour - [2025] NSWSC 872

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Kaddour [2025] NSWSC 872
Hearing dates: 1 August 2025
Date of orders: 1 August 2025
Decision date: 05 August 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Fagan J
Decision:
Detention application granted

Catchwords:
CRIME – Bail – Variation application – Detention application – Large commercial drug supply, manufacture of prohibited drug, possession of proceeds of crime and other serious drug offences –– Bail Act 2013 (NSW) s 30A – Private electronic monitoring – Power of Supreme Court of NSW to hear detention application – Whether revocation within scope of power to vary a bail decision – Whether bail risks could be mitigated by conditions other than electronic monitoring – Bail revoked.

Legislation Cited:
Bail Act 2013 (NSW)

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Applicant)
Kali Kaddour (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
K Kanagasabapathy (Solicitor Crown)
P Lange (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
One Group Legal (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2025/242920

JUDGMENT

On Friday, 1 August 2025 there were listed before the Court two applications under the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) concerning a grant of bail that was made in favour of Kalid Kaddour by Weinstein J on 25 February 2025.
One of the conditions imposed by his Honour was that Mr Kaddour should be under home detention, not to leave his approved residence except in the company of one of three nominated persons, or to report to police, or to attend upon his legal representatives, or attend court, or to obtain medical treatment. One of the applications before this Court on 1 August 2025 was brought by Mr Kaddour seeking the addition of another person in whose company he might leave his approved residence.
A second condition of Weinstein J’s grant of bail on 25 February 2025 was that, at his own expense, Mr Kaddour should be fitted with an electronic monitoring device that he would keep operational and that would be monitored by a surveillance company. That condition is imminently to be removed by force of a new s 30A of the Bail Act that was inserted with effect from 11 June 2025 and by force of associated transitional provisions. It is submitted by the Crown that the electronic monitoring condition was a “core” basis for Weinstein J’s grant of bail on 25 February 2025 and that, with its statutory removal, Mr Kaddour’s liberty on bail can no longer be justified.
At the conclusion of the hearing on 1 August 2025 I revoked bail and ordered that Mr Kaddour be remanded in custody, next to appear before Penrith Local Court on 8 August 2025. These are the Court’s reasons for that decision. In consequence of those orders it became unnecessary to consider Mr Kaddour’s application for variation of his house arrest condition.

The charges and Mr Kaddour’s several bail applications

The most serious offence with which is charged is that on 6 March 2024 he supplied not less than the large commercial quantity of MDMA, specifically 30 kgs. Police allege that his co-accused,…

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 Kaddour

Details

AGLC: R v Kaddour [2025] NSWSC 872
Case: [2025] NSWSC 872
Decision Date: 05 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Kaddour, the defendant was facing charges related to the large-scale supply of commercial drugs, the manufacture of prohibited drugs, possession of proceeds of crime, and other serious drug-related offences. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issue before the court was whether the defendant's bail should be revoked or varied due to concerns over the risks posed if bail was continued. The court had to determine whether the revocation of bail fell within the scope of the power to vary bail and whether the risks associated with bail could be adequately mitigated through conditions other than private electronic monitoring.

The court considered the seriousness of the offences and the potential danger posed to the community if the defendant was released on bail. It examined whether the existing bail conditions were sufficient to mitigate the risk and whether alternative measures could be imposed to ensure the defendant's compliance and the safety of the community. The defendant argued that the bail conditions, which included electronic monitoring, were stringent and sufficient to ensure compliance. However, the prosecution contended that the nature of the charges and the potential risks warranted revocation of bail and detention until the trial.

The Supreme Court found that the risk posed by the defendant was too significant to be mitigated by the existing bail conditions, including electronic monitoring. The court concluded that the nature of the offences and the potential for reoffending justified the revocation of bail. The court emphasised that the stringent nature of the bail conditions was insufficient to address the gravity of the offences and the risk to the community. As a result, the bail was revoked, and the defendant was ordered to be detained until the conclusion of the trial.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant's bail was revoked, and he was to be detained in custody until the disposal of all charges against him. The court also noted that any future applications for bail would be considered in light of the serious nature of the charges and the significant risks involved.

Orders