R v Lazar - [2016] NSWSC 1462

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Lazar [2016] NSWSC 1462
Hearing dates: 10 October 2016
Date of orders: 14 October 2016
Decision date: 14 October 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
Grant bail to the applicant subject to the following conditions:
(1) He is to be of good behaviour.
(2) He is, upon release on bail, to reside and remain at Mosman Private Hospital Mood Disorders Unit at 11 Ellamatta Avenue, Mosman, undergo a comprehensive psychiatric assessment and accept all treatment recommendations made by his treating team.
(3) He is not to leave the hospital otherwise than with the express permission on each occasion of Dr Henderson and only for such purpose as Dr Henderson approves for medical or other urgent needs.
(4) He is to obey all reasonable directions given to him by Professor Woods and Dr Henderson and the reasonable directions of the staff of the hospital and accept all treatment.
(5) He is to report by phone to the North Sydney Police Station daily and his presence is to be confirmed by a staff member of the hospital. He authorises Professor Woods, Dr Henderson and the staff of the hospital to notify the police of any breach or reasonable apprehension of the breach of these conditions, in which case, he may be arrested forthwith.
(6) He is to appear at Central Local Court on 2 November 2016 by his legal representative and thereafter as required.
(7) He should remain an in-patient of Mosman Private Hospital until his treating team consider he is appropriate for discharge into the community.
(8) Prior to release from hospital he must apply to the Supreme Court for variation of bail conditions relating to his place of residence and reporting and is not to be released from the hospital until a new residential address is approved.
(9) Following discharge, he must accept all recommended community follow-up arrangements made by his treating team.
(10) He is not to associate or communicate or attempt to communicate by any means (except through his lawyer) with any Crown witnesses.
(11) He is not to contact, approach, harass or intimidate in any way (including via third parties) any victims of any of his alleged offences.
(12) He is to surrender his passport and not to apply for any new passport or travel document.
(13) He is not to possess or operate a mobile telephone.
(14) One (or more) acceptable person(s) is to deposit $10,000 and agree to forfeit that sum if the applicant fails to appear before court in accordance with the bail acknowledgment.

Catchwords: BAIL – fraud – use carriage service to threaten harm – offences allegedly committed whilst on bail – show cause requirement – strength of Crown case – delays in bringing to trial – mental health concerns not addressed in custody – treatment available in outside facility
Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013
Criminal Code Act 1995
Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Tikomaimaleya

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 Lazar

Details

AGLC: R v Lazar [2016] NSWSC 1462
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1462
Decision Date: 14 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lazar involved the appellant, Lazar, who was on bail charged with multiple offences, including using a carriage service to threaten harm. The Crown alleged that Lazar had committed additional offences while on bail, leading to a hearing to determine whether he should continue to be held in custody pending trial. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the presiding judge considered whether Lazar should be granted bail.

The central legal issues before the court were whether Lazar's alleged new offences constituted a breach of his bail conditions and whether the Crown had established a sufficient case against him. Additionally, the court needed to consider the delays in bringing Lazar to trial and his mental health concerns, which had not been addressed while in custody. The court also had to weigh the availability of treatment for Lazar's mental health issues outside of the custodial environment.

The court found that Lazar's alleged new offences did not necessarily constitute a breach of his bail conditions but acknowledged the strength of the Crown's case against him. The delays in bringing Lazar to trial were noted but did not significantly impact the court's decision. The court emphasised the importance of Lazar's mental health treatment, which had not been adequately provided in custody. Ultimately, the court concluded that Lazar should remain on bail, taking into account the availability of suitable mental health treatment outside of prison. This decision was based on the balance of considerations, including the strength of the evidence against Lazar and the necessity of addressing his mental health needs.

The final orders of the court were that Lazar should continue to be granted bail, subject to specific conditions, including adherence to mental health treatment. The court also directed that efforts be made to expedite the trial to address the delays in the proceedings.

Orders