R v Raad Fajloun

[2007] NSWDC 379

CITATION:	R v Raad Fajloun [2007] NSWDC 379
HEARING DATE(S):	13 December 2007
JUDGMENT DATE:	13 December 2007
JURISDICTION:	District Court of New South Wales
JUDGMENT OF:	Cogswell SC DCJ
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - Bail application - convicted by jury - need for further psychiatric assessment - security of victim
LEGISLATION CITED:	Bail Act, 1978
PARTIES:	R Raad Fajloun
FILE NUMBER(S):	06/21/0248
COUNSEL:	Ms Herbert (NSWDPP) Dr Webb

JUDGMENT

1. Mr Raad Fajloun has applied for bail. He was convicted by a jury last month of two serious offences involving invading his wife’s unit and kidnapping and holding her. Bail was not applied for after the conviction and he has been in custody since then.

2. Today through his counsel, Dr Webb, he applies for bail. A number of bases are put. One basis concerns the need for further psychiatric assessment and, on the bail application, a report by Dr Stephen Allnutt dated 12 December 2007 was tendered. Dr Allnutt does raise the question of doubts about Mr Raad Fajloun’s mental state. However, he was not in a position to provide a firm conclusion. For that reason I vacated today’s hearing date for the sentence proceedings.

3. Dr Webb submits that the obtaining of further psychiatric evidence will be facilitated by his client being in the community rather than in custody. That may be true, but arrangements have already been made for Dr Allnutt to see Mr Raad Fajloun in custody and Dr Allnutt, as a self-described forensic psychiatrist, would be, I am satisfied, in a position to see a person who is a prisoner in a Corrective Services facility.

4. Dr Webb emphasised his community ties. They are indeed of some substance. He has many family ties.

5. Opposing bail Ms Herbert, for the Crown, points to a flight risk and to the security of the victim of the offence. The victim of the offence was Mr Fajloun’s wife. Dr Webb - returning briefly to his submissions - indicated that the crime was a very specific one so that there should not be a general concern for Mr Raad Fajloun’s behaviour in the community. However, it appears that security arrangements for the victim of the crime have been changed as a result of Mr Raad Fajloun being in custody. The victim’s circumstances are no longer as secure as they formerly were.

6. It seems to me likely, although I say that cautiously only because I have not heard submissions, that Mr Raad Fajloun will face a period of full-time custody as a result of his convictions. Dr Webb on his behalf acknowledged realistically that likelihood.

7. Mr Raad Fajloun is therefore in a position where he has been convicted by a jury of two very serious offences and is likely to face a custodial sentence. The preparation of his case on sentence will not be prejudiced by the fact that he is in custody and the strength of his community ties does not alone warrant the granting of bail in a case such as this.

8. I therefore for those reasons reject the application.

**********