R v Mark Younis - [2011] NSWDC 229

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Mark YOUNIS [2011] NSWDC 229
Decision date: 20 December 2011
Before: Cogswell SC DCJ
Decision:
Proceedings for resolution of question of non-compliance with a good behaviour bond adjourned.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Procedure - adjournment - granted on grounds two jurisdictions involved - potential for inconsistent determinations.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 12
Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986
Cases Cited: R v Nicholson [2010] NSWCCA 80
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Mark YOUNIS (Accused)
Representation: Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
AYS Legals (Accused)

File Number(s): DC 2007/12428

Judgment

Ms B Butt, solicitor, who appears for the Director of Public Prosecutions, asserts that there has been a failure to comply with the conditions of a good behaviour bond which I imposed on Mark Younis.

Mr A Sandroussi, solicitor, who appears for Mr Younis, argues that there has not yet been any failure to comply. He says the reason is that the conduct said to amount to a breach has resulted in a charge or charges against his client. To those charges his client is pleading not guilty and the case has not yet been determined by the Local Court. He therefore says that it is not appropriate for me yet to determine Ms Butt's application for me to act on an alleged breach.

A little more needs to be said about the background. I sentenced Mr Younis originally in 2008. I imposed a sentence of imprisonment but suspended it under s 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and imposed a good behaviour bond as well. The law provides that if an offender breaches that good behaviour bond then it is very difficult not to be sent to gaol once the failure to comply is proved.

In January this year I received notification that Mr Younis had failed to comply with the good behaviour bond which I had imposed. The allegation was that he had committed certain offences in 2009. I directed that Mr Younis be brought before me for determining whether or not he had failed to comply with the good behaviour bond.

The matter has been before me throughout this year on about half a dozen different times. The problem was caused by Mr Younis originally pleading guilty to the conduct which resulted in the claim that he had failed to comply with his bond. He pleaded guilty when he was charged with the offences in the Local Court but then he applied to the Local Court to reverse his pleas of guilty to not guilty. There followed a series of administrative errors, misunderstandings and oversights.

The result is that the charges against Mr Younis arising from his alleged conduct in 2009 have not yet been determined. Ms Butt urges me to proceed in any event. She adopted my observation that s 98 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act - which deals with breaches of good behaviour bonds - provides that I…

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 Mark Younis

Details

AGLC: R v Mark Younis [2011] NSWDC 229
Case: [2011] NSWDC 229
Decision Date: 20 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Mark Younis, the defendant was before the court to address an alleged breach of a good behaviour bond. The dispute involved two jurisdictions, with potential for inconsistent determinations, leading to a request for an adjournment. The matter was heard in the higher court, which considered the implications of the overlapping jurisdictions.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the proceedings should be adjourned to allow for a resolution of the non-compliance issue, given the involvement of two separate jurisdictions. The court had to weigh the need for a unified approach to the defendant's conduct against the practicalities of managing proceedings across different legal systems. Consideration was also given to the defendant's right to a fair and efficient trial, as well as the potential for inconsistent outcomes if the matter proceeded in both jurisdictions simultaneously.

The court found that the presence of two jurisdictions with potential for conflicting decisions warranted an adjournment. It was determined that an adjournment would facilitate a more comprehensive and coordinated approach to resolving the defendant's non-compliance, thereby avoiding the risk of inconsistent outcomes. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the defendant's rights were protected and that the legal process was both fair and effective. Consequently, the proceedings were adjourned to allow for a resolution of the question of non-compliance with the good behaviour bond.

The court's decision resulted in an adjournment of the proceedings for the resolution of the non-compliance with the good behaviour bond. This outcome aimed to ensure a coordinated and fair resolution, considering the involvement of multiple jurisdictions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Proceedings for resolution of question of non-compliance with a good behaviour bond adjourned.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Mark YOUNIS [2011] NSWDC 229
Decision date:	20 December 2011
Before:	Cogswell SC DCJ
Decision:	Proceedings for resolution of question of non-compliance with a good behaviour bond adjourned.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - Procedure - adjournment - granted on grounds two jurisdictions involved - potential for inconsistent determinations.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 12 Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986
Cases Cited:	R v Nicholson [2010] NSWCCA 80
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Mark YOUNIS (Accused)
Representation:	Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) AYS Legals (Accused)
File Number(s):	DC 2007/12428