R v Shah

Case [2017] NSWDC 292


District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Shah [2017] NSWDC 292
Hearing dates: 21 September 2017
Date of orders: 26 September 2017
Decision date: 26 September 2017
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Hatzistergos DCJ
Decision:

The application for release is refused

Catchwords:

BAIL – SHOW CAUSE OFFENCE – whether cause has been demonstrated – delay until further trial – cause not shown by accused – UNACCEPTABLE RISK –criminal antecedents – history of violence – nature and seriousness of the charges –history of compliance – likelihood of custodial sentence – need to be at liberty to prepare for trial or any other lawful reason – views of the victim – conditions that could reasonably be imposed

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 86(1)(b)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 9 and 12
Bail Act 2013 (NSW) ss 16A, 16B, 17, 18, 19, 20A, 25, 26, 31 and 32

Cases Cited:

A1 v R; A2 v R [2016] NSWSC 1288
Director of Public Prosecutions v Hourigan [2017] NSWCCA 170
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Tikomaimaleya [2015] NSWCA 83
Homsi v R; Karamalakis v R [2011] NSWCCA
Jeffries v R [2008] NSWCCA 144
JM v R [2015] NSWSC 978
R v Farrell [2016] NSWSC 1278
R v Newell [2004] NSWCCA 183
R v Xie [2015] NSWSC 1833

Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Mohd Mahzrin Nadzri Shah (accused)
Regina (Crown)
Representation: Mr W Brewer (accused)
Ms B O’Reilly (Crown)
File Number(s): 2016/132129
Publication restriction: Decision restricted pending the trial of the accused

Judgment

  1. The accused, Mr Mohd Mahzrin Nadzri Shah has been committed to stand trial in this court in respect of the offence that he did on 29 April 2016, at Smithfield in the State of New South Wales, detain Lisa Whittaker without her consent and with the intent to obtain an advantage, namely, a psychological advantage contrary to s 86(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

  2. The matter first came on for trial on 22 May 2017 however, it was formally marked not reached on 23 May 2017. Thereafter the matter came on for trial on 4 September 2017. On 11 September 2017, the jury was discharged. The matter has now been listed for further trial on 5 March 2018 with a seven day estimate.

  3. The accused has been in custody since 29 April 2016, bail refused. On 21 September 2017, I heard a release application made on his behalf. Ms O’Reilly of counsel appeared on behalf of the Crown and Mr Brewer of counsel appeared on behalf of the accused. It was acknowledged both parties that the charge on the indictment was a show cause offence as it was a serious indictable offence and it was alleged to have been committed at a time when the accused was on parole,[1] requiring the accused to show cause as to why his detention was not justified. [2]

    1. s 16B(1)(h)(ii) of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW). Hereinafter referred to as the “2013 Act”

    2. s 16A(1)…

Continue reading R v Shah

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Shah [2017] NSWDC 292
Case
[2017] NSWDC 292
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a defendant, Shah, and the prosecution. The issue at hand was whether Shah had demonstrated sufficient cause for his release on bail while awaiting trial on serious criminal charges. The matter was heard in the Magistrates Court. The legal issues that the court needed to address included whether the defendant had shown acceptable cause for bail, the risk of him reoffending if released, his criminal history, the seriousness of the charges against him, and the potential impact on the victim. The court also considered the need for Shah to be at liberty to prepare for his trial or any other lawful reason.

The court examined the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. It found that Shah had not demonstrated sufficient cause for bail. The court highlighted Shah's criminal antecedents and history of violence, which raised concerns about his potential to reoffend if released. Additionally, the nature and seriousness of the charges against him, combined with the likelihood of a custodial sentence, indicated that it was necessary to keep him in custody. The court also considered the views of the victim, who expressed concerns for their safety if Shah were to be released. The court concluded that it could not impose conditions that would reasonably ensure Shah's compliance with bail terms, given the circumstances.

Given the considerations above, the court determined that there was an unacceptable risk that Shah would reoffend if released on bail. The court found that Shah had not shown acceptable cause for his release, and therefore, the application for bail was refused. The court acknowledged the need for Shah to be at liberty to prepare for his trial; however, it found that this need did not outweigh the risk of reoffending and the potential impact on the victim. The court's decision was based on the evidence presented and the legal principles governing bail applications.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for release is refused

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.