R v Russell - [2018] NSWSC 1496

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Russell [2018] NSWSC 1496
Hearing dates: 3 October 2018
Date of orders: 04 October 2018
Decision date: 05 October 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hidden AJ
Decision:
Detention application refused.

Catchwords: BAIL - detention application - show cause - application refused
Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Brooks [2015] NSWCCA 190
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Mawad [2015] NSWCCA 227
Moukhallaletti v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2016] NSWCCA 314
R v Gountounas [2018] NSWCCA 40
R v S [2016] NSWCCA 189
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Levi John Russell (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
R. Rodger (Crown)
G. Brady SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Director Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Conaghan Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2018/291791
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Local Court NSW

Before:

Magistrate Shurr (LCM)

Judgment

Two days ago, I heard an application by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for the detention of the respondent, Levi John Russell, who has been granted bail by a magistrate in respect of 6 related charges. Yesterday I refused the application. I outlined my reasons briefly, undertaking to provide fuller reasons today. These are those reasons.
The first 2 charges allege the importation (on different occasions) of commercial quantities of methylamphetamine. The third is a charge of dealing with the proceeds of crime, being a substantial sum of money. The fourth is the (deemed) supply of a commercial quantity of cocaine. The fifth is possession of a prohibited weapon, a taser cartridge, and the sixth is a charge of goods in custody relating to bankcards, bearing a signature other than the respondent’s, issued by a bank based in Singapore. The first, second and fourth charges require the respondent to show cause why his detention is not justified, and argument upon the application focused upon those charges and the charge of dealing with money, the proceeds of crime.
The respondent is the proprietor of an earth moving and excavations company. Put shortly, the importation charges arise from the delivery at the company’s premises of machinery items containing the methylamphetamine. The first delivery is alleged to have occurred in October 2017, and the second between late November 2017 and early August 2018. On each occasion there was a large amount of methylamphetamine of a high degree of purity. The third and fourth charges arise from the police finding at those premises cash in excess of $300,000 and a substantial quantity of cocaine on the day the respondent was arrested, 3 August 2018.
All the charges are listed at Central Local Court on 31 October 2018 for replies to the brief. On 30 August 2018, Magistrate Shurr granted the respondent conditional bail, which was entered into on 6 September 2018.
The major charges, particularly the two importation charges, are very serious and, in the event of conviction, are likely to result in a substantial term of imprisonment. The Crown case is strong. There…

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 Russell

Details

AGLC: R v Russell [2018] NSWSC 1496
Case: [2018] NSWSC 1496
Decision Date: 05 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Russell, the defendant sought bail from the court. The nature of the dispute was whether the defendant should be released on bail pending the resolution of charges against him. The matter was heard in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The legal issues before the court were whether there was a sufficient basis for the defendant's detention and whether the prosecution had demonstrated a compelling reason for the defendant's continued incarceration.

The court considered the principles of bail under the Bail Act 1985 (Vic). It assessed whether the defendant posed an unacceptable risk to the community, had failed to appear in court previously, or whether there were other factors that warranted his detention. The prosecution argued that the defendant's detention was necessary due to the seriousness of the charges and the risk of reoffending. However, the court found that the prosecution had not provided sufficient evidence to justify the defendant's continued detention. The defendant had no prior criminal history and there were no compelling reasons to believe he would fail to appear in court or pose a risk to the community.

Consequently, the court ruled that the defendant should be released on bail, and the application for detention was refused. The court ordered the defendant to be released on standard bail conditions, including a requirement to report to a specified police station on a regular basis and to surrender his passport. The court also set a date for the defendant's next court appearance.

Orders