Re Ahmed Hablas - [2010] VSC 429

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Not Restricted

S CR 2010 0149

IN THE MATTER of the BailAct1977 (Vic)

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for bail by AHMED HABLAS

---

JUDGE:	WILLIAMS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17 September 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 September 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Ahmed Hablas
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 429

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail application – Charge of murder – Whether exceptional circumstances established.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms J Dixon SC	Tait Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr G Horgan SC	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HER HONOUR:

Mr Hablas has been charged with the murder of Mr Mohammed Haddara on 20 June 2009. He has applied for bail. Because he faces a murder charge, the Bail Act 1977 requires him to demonstrate that there are exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of bail.

Mr Hablas was taken into custody on 28 June 2010 and his next court appearance is on 11 October 2010 for a committal mention. He relies upon a combination of matters, which he says amount to the necessary exceptional circumstances in this case.

Mr Hablas first argues that the prosecution case is weak, because it will be difficult for the Crown to prove that he did not act in self-defence when he shot Mr Haddara.

He then relies upon the circumstances in which he is spending his time in Barwon Prison. He points out that, although he is allowed out of his cell for six or seven hours a day, he has no contact with any other prisoners apart from the one in the next cell and he must speak to that prisoner through a glass partition. These conditions have been imposed by prison authorities for his own protection after he was moved from the Melbourne Remand Centre where he had been threatened by a member of the Haddara family who had, unfortunately, been placed in an adjacent cell.

Mr Hablas submits that there will be a significant delay before his trial, anticipating that there will not be a committal hearing before February or March 2011.

The Director opposes a grant of bail. He argues that Mr Hablas has not established the necessary exceptional circumstances. He says that the Court could not conclude that the prosecution case was a weak one at this stage when the accused man is relying upon a self serving statement to the effect that he was acting in self defence and where various accounts of events have not been tested, even in a contested committal hearing. He says that the application is premature and that even the length of any delay has not been established. He brings no evidence to contradict what senior counsel for Mr Hablas said about his conditions of incarceration.

The Director then argues that, even if the Court thought that there were the necessary exceptional circumstances, bail ought not be granted because there is an…

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 Re Ahmed Hablas

Details

AGLC: Re Ahmed Hablas [2010] VSC 429
Case: [2010] VSC 429
Decision Date: 17 September 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Re Ahmed Hablas was a case heard in the High Court of Australia. The respondent, Ahmed Hablas, had been charged with murder and was applying for bail. The primary issue for the court was whether exceptional circumstances existed that would justify granting bail to Hablas, despite the gravity of the charge. This determination required the court to weigh the potential impact on the community and the risk of flight against Hablas's rights and personal circumstances.

The court considered several factors in its analysis. It examined the nature and severity of the charge, which was murder, and the potential impact on the community if Hablas were to be released on bail. The court also evaluated the risk of Hablas fleeing if granted bail and whether there were any mitigating factors that would reduce this risk. Additionally, the court assessed Hablas's personal circumstances, including his ties to the community, employment, and family obligations, to determine if these factors warranted a grant of bail.

The court concluded that exceptional circumstances were not established in this case. The severity of the charge and the potential community impact weighed heavily against granting bail. The risk of Hablas fleeing, combined with his lack of strong ties to the community, further supported the denial of bail. Consequently, the court upheld the decision of the lower court to deny Hablas bail.

The court did not make any further orders beyond confirming the decision to deny bail. The decision underscored the high threshold required for granting bail in cases involving serious charges such as murder, particularly when exceptional circumstances have not been convincingly demonstrated.

Orders