Legal Research
Cases
R v Subasic (No 2)

R v Subasic (No 2)

Case [2023] ACTSC 79 27 January 2023

Jurisdiction

Bail

Breach of Contract

Unconscionable Conduct

Restitution

Contempt of Court

Civil Penalty

Admissibility of Evidence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Subasic (No 2)
Citation:	[2023] ACTSC 79
Hearing Date:	27 January 2023
Decision Date:	27 January 2023
Reasons Date:	14 April 2023
Before:	Refshauge AJ
Decision:	1. Jeremy William Subasic be granted bail on the following conditions: a. That he reside at [redacted for legal reasons] during the bail period. b. That he be at his place of residence between the hours of 9pm each day and 6am the next day and present himself to the front door of the residence if requested to do so by a member of the Australian Federal Police during those hours. c. That he accept the supervision of the Commissioner of ACT Corrective Services or his delegate (referred to in these conditions as “the person supervising him”) and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him. d. That he not consume alcohol, cannabis, illegal drugs, or any prescription drugs not prescribed to him. e. That he not have in his possession any firearm or ammunition for any firearm. f. That he submit to urinalysis, drug testing and breath analysis if directed by the person supervising him. g. That he report to Belconnen Police Station every Monday and Friday between the hours of 8am and 8pm. h. That he admit himself to the Matrix program conducted by Karralika Programs Inc. as soon as a place is available and advise the person supervising him that he has been advised of his admission to the program and of the date of admission within 24 hours of him being advised of this. i. That he advise the staff at Karralika Programs Inc. that he consents to them providing to the person supervising him, on request by that person, any information about his progress under the Matrix program. j. That he not drive a motor vehicle, be in the driver’s seat of a motor vehicle, or have in his possession the keys to a motor vehicle. k. That he not leave his place of residence between 6am and 9pm each day, except in the company of [redacted for legal reasons] and remain in their company until he returns to his place of residence. l. That, despite the requirement that Jeremy William Subasic not leave his place of residence, he be permitted to do so in case of an emergency, as directed by the person supervising him, or to attend Club Lime Gymnasium at Westfield Shopping Town, Belconnen, for exercise, in which case he is to travel directly to such appointments from his place of residence and return directly to his place of residence after the conclusion of such attendance. 2. The proceedings be adjourned until 10 February 2023 at 2:15pm for sentence.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bail – Application for bail pending re-sentence –Offender seeking to attend rehabilitation – Awaiting assessment for rehabilitation day program – History of breaching bail – What constitutes “past behaviour” – Completed rehabilitation program in custody –…

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 Subasic (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Subasic (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 79
Case: [2023] ACTSC 79
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Subasic (No 2), Jeremy William Subasic sought bail pending his re-sentencing following the cancellation of his Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. Mr Subasic was seeking to attend the Matrix Program run by Karralika Programs Inc, a drug rehabilitation agency. Subasic had a history of drug dependence and criminal activity, and had previously failed to comply with his bail conditions. The court was required to consider the risk of reoffending and the likelihood of Subasic complying with the proposed bail conditions. The court found that Subasic had made substantial efforts at rehabilitation and achieved progress through the completion of the Solaris Therapeutic Community program. While his past behaviour was a concern, the court considered that the changed circumstances and appropriate bail conditions could manage any risk. The court granted bail with strict conditions, including a curfew, restrictions on leaving his residence, and requirements to attend the Matrix Program and report to Belconnen Police Station. The court also required Subasic to submit to urinalysis, drug testing, and breath analysis, and to refrain from consuming alcohol, cannabis, illegal drugs, and possessing firearms or ammunition. The final orders of the court included the specific bail conditions outlined above, and the proceedings were adjourned until 10 February 2023 for sentence.

Orders