Raad v R - [2015] NSWSC 532

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Raad v R [2015] NSWSC 532
Hearing dates: 12 February 2015
Date of orders: 12 February 2015
Decision date: 12 February 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: McCallum J
Decision:
Release application is refused

Catchwords: BAIL – release application – show cause requirement
Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013 (NSW) – ss 16A, 17(2)(d), 18, 18(1)(h),
Firearms Act 1996 – s 71
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Omar Raad (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
D Robinson (Crown)
D Drewett (Applicant)
Solicitors:
Leigh Johnson Lawyers (Applicant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2014/218372

judgment

HER HONOUR: Before the Court is a release application by Mr Omar Raad. Mr Raad stands charged with a series of offences all arising effectively out of the same incident or series of incidents. The date on which it is alleged the offences were committed is 26 April 2014 and the applicant has been in custody since his arrest on that date.
One of the offences with which Mr Raad is charged is the offence of possessing an unauthorised prohibited firearm contrary to s 71 of the Firearms Act 1996. Consequently the application carries a show cause requirement under the recently amended provisions of the Bail Act2013, since that is a serious indictable offence under the Firearms Act involving the use of a firearm.
Briefly the allegations arise out of what appears to have been a measure of developing conflict between the applicant, who used to run a market stall at Ettalong Beach markets, and the Altavilla family, who are the owners of those markets.
It is alleged that in that context the applicant confronted the alleged victim, Mr Matthew Altavilla, and at some point in his alleged threats to that man produced a knife similar to a fishing or camping knife. I was informed on the present application that no such weapon has ever been found.
According to the police statement of facts during that confrontation the step-daughter of the applicant, then described as 16-year old daughter ‘B’, intervened to try to take the knife from the applicant. The statement of facts asserts that the applicant then threw the knife towards the victim, missing him by a metre.
It is further alleged that there was a later confrontation when the applicant's 10-year old son approached his mother, the partner of the applicant, and said "Mum, mum, come quick. Dad's had a fight". It is alleged that at that point the applicant made a statement suggesting an intention to confront the alleged victim again, saying to his partner, Ms Williams, "Come on, get in the car. I'm gonna kill the bastard". It is alleged that an independent witness at that point, a Mr de Souza asked, "Who is that, Hass?" The name "Hass" being a nickname for the applicant. It is alleged that the applicant replied "Matthew. I'm gonna kill him. I've got a gun". According to the police case the applicant then…

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 Raad v R

Details

AGLC: Raad v The Queen [2015] NSWSC 532
Case: [2015] NSWSC 532
Decision Date: 12 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the appellant, Raad, applied for bail while awaiting trial for serious criminal charges. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the prosecution had met its burden of showing cause for the appellant's continued detention, given the significant time that had elapsed since the application for bail was made. The court had to determine whether the delay in presenting the show cause application was unreasonable, and if so, whether this impacted the prosecution's ability to justify the appellant's detention.

The court held that the prosecution's delay in presenting its show cause application did not necessarily render the application invalid, but it did require careful consideration of the circumstances. The court examined the reasons for the delay, the nature of the charges, and the appellant's history and circumstances. It was noted that the prosecution's case was complex and required substantial preparation, which justified the delay. The court found that the prosecution had met its burden of showing cause for the appellant's continued detention, as the serious nature of the charges and the appellant's history warranted his continued custody to ensure he would attend trial.

The court dismissed the appeal, confirming the decision of the lower court to deny bail. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the appellant would attend trial, given the gravity of the charges. The court also highlighted that the prosecution's delay did not automatically result in the dismissal of the show cause application, provided the reasons for the delay were justifiable and the prosecution could still demonstrate a valid reason for detention. The final orders confirmed the appellant's continued detention pending the outcome of his trial.

Orders