R v Saedam - [2015] ACTSC 85

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Saedam
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 85
Hearing Date(s):	27 March 2015
DecisionDate:	1 April 2015
Before:	Refshauge J
Decision:	Abdulrahman Mohamad Saedam is granted bail on the following conditions: 1. That he appear in court when notified by the Registrar personally, or through his solicitor, of any date when he is so required to appear. 2. That prior to Mr Saedam’s release on bail Salim Youssef pay in cash to the Registrar of the Supreme Court by deposit into the Supreme Court bank account the sum of $5,000, with a written undertaking that this sum be forfeited to the Territory if Mr Saedam fails to appear in court in accordance with condition 1, such signed written undertaking may be provided in the first instance by facsimile transmission or a scanned document sent by email and is to be received at least in that form prior to his release on bail, such signed undertaking to include with that person’s consent that the deposit and undertaking continues to apply if bail is continued. 3. That he surrender to the Armadale Courthouse, Perth, by 4pm Thursday 2 April 2015, all passports, visas, and other government documents that may be used for international travel, for delivery to the Registrar of the ACT Supreme Court. 4. That he not contact or approach any diplomatic mission (Embassy, High Commission or Consulate) or any member of a diplomatic mission in person, by mail or electronically including by telephone, for the purpose of obtaining a passport, visa or other travel document. 5. That, upon his release, he travel by air and by the first available flight to Perth. 6. That until he is required to take his trial in Canberra he reside at 37A Walderton Avenue, Balga, Western Australia. 7. That he report every day between the hours of 11.00 am and 3 pm to the Officer-in-Charge of Morley Police Station in Western Australia. 8. That he not approach any port or airport of international departure save that he may be at the Canberra Airport or the Perth Airport but only for the purposes of travelling to Perth from Canberra or to Canberra from Perth and then in accordance with these conditions and while holding a valid airline ticket for such a journey. 9. That he not enter the Australian Capital Territory except to attend on his lawyers by prior arrangement and for the purpose of these proceedings and then for the shortest time reasonably necessary for that purpose. 10. That he not contact, directly or indirectly, or cause any person to contact, directly or indirectly, including by any electronic means such as SMS or the Internet, [the complainant].
Category:	Principal Judgment
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURSIDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bail – Engaging in sexual intercourse without consent – Assault – Assault with the intent of engaging in sexual intercourse – Theft – Domestic violence – Risk of flight – Applicant to reside interstate whilst on…

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 Saedam

Details

AGLC: R v Saedam [2015] ACTSC 85
Case: [2015] ACTSC 85
Decision Date: 1 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Saedam involved Abdulrahman Mohamad Saedam, who was charged with engaging in sexual intercourse without consent, assault with intent to engage in sexual intercourse, theft, and domestic violence. The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory was tasked with determining whether bail should be granted to the applicant. The applicant sought to reside in Western Australia while on bail, which raised concerns about the risk of flight and reoffending, as well as the potential for intimidating the complainant.

The court was required to weigh the seriousness of the charges against the applicant's right to liberty, taking into account the risk of flight, the risk of reoffending, and the potential for intimidating the complainant. Given the allegations of domestic violence and the serious nature of the charges, the court needed to determine if bail could be granted under conditions that sufficiently mitigated these risks. The court also had to consider the applicant's proposal to reside in Western Australia while on bail and the implications of this on the risk factors.

In deciding the bail application, the court considered the severity of the charges and the potential for reoffending and intimidating the complainant. Despite these concerns, the court found that the conditions proposed could sufficiently mitigate the risks. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations but concluded that the conditions of bail, which included financial surety, surrendering travel documents, restrictions on contact with the complainant, and specific residency and reporting requirements, were sufficient to allow bail. The court determined that the conditions would adequately address the risk of flight, reoffending, and intimidation.

The court granted bail subject to specific conditions, including financial surety, restrictions on travel, and residency and reporting requirements. The court ordered that the applicant reside in Western Australia and report to the police daily. The applicant was also required to surrender his travel documents and refrain from contacting the complainant or any diplomatic missions. These conditions were deemed sufficient to manage the risks associated with granting bail in this case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Abdulrahman Mohamad Saedam is granted bail on the following conditions:

1. That he appear in court when notified by the Registrar personally, or through his solicitor, of any date when he is so required to appear.

2. That prior to Mr Saedam’s release on bail Salim Youssef pay in cash to the Registrar of the Supreme Court by deposit into the Supreme Court bank account the sum of $5,000, with a written undertaking that this sum be forfeited to the Territory if Mr Saedam fails to appear in court in accordance with condition 1, such signed written undertaking may be provided in the first instance by facsimile transmission or a scanned document sent by email and is to be received at least in that form prior to his release on bail, such signed undertaking to include with that person’s consent that the deposit and undertaking continues to apply if bail is continued.

3. That he surrender to the Armadale Courthouse, Perth, by 4pm Thursday 2 April 2015, all passports, visas, and other government documents that may be used for international travel, for delivery to the Registrar of the ACT Supreme Court.

4. That he not contact or approach any diplomatic mission (Embassy, High Commission or Consulate) or any member of a diplomatic mission in person, by mail or electronically including by telephone, for the purpose of obtaining a passport, visa or other travel document.

5. That, upon his release, he travel by air and by the first available flight to Perth.

6. That until he is required to take his trial in Canberra he reside at 37A Walderton Avenue, Balga, Western Australia.

7. That he report every day between the hours of 11.00 am and 3 pm to the Officer-in-Charge of Morley Police Station in Western Australia.

8. That he not approach any port or airport of international departure save that he may be at the Canberra Airport or the Perth Airport but only for the purposes of travelling to Perth from Canberra or to Canberra from Perth and then in accordance with these conditions and while holding a valid airline ticket for such a journey.

9. That he not enter the Australian Capital Territory except to attend on his lawyers by prior arrangement and for the purpose of these proceedings and then for the shortest time reasonably necessary for that purpose.

10. That he not contact, directly or indirectly, or cause any person to contact, directly or indirectly, including by any electronic means such as SMS or the Internet, [the complainant].

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.