Re Al-Qassim - [2022] VSC 576

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2022 0188

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by HUSSAIN AL-QASSIM

and

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

---

JUDGE:	Champion J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17 August 2022
DATE OF RULING:	1 September 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Al-Qassim
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 576

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for Bail – Applicant charged with aggravated home invasion with firearm, theft, assault with weapon, false imprisonment, armed robbery, intentionally cause injury – Strength of prosecution case – Delay – History of serious offending and breaches of bail – Availability of surety and employment – Availability of drug treatment and rehabilitation – Exceptional circumstances not found – Unacceptable risk – Bail refused – Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr A Chernok	Slaveski & Associates
For the Respondent	Ms S Coombes	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

On 9 December 2021 the applicant, Hussain Al-Qassim, was arrested and charged by Senior Constable Andrew Selwyn in respect of a number of incidents that had occurred between August and December 2021. He was remanded in custody on that date and was most recently refused bail on 17 June 2022.

The applicant was charged by informant Selwyn with the following 48 offences:

(a)false imprisonment (ten counts);
(b)theft (seven counts);
(c)aggravated home invasion with firearm (five counts);
(d)assault with a weapon (five counts);
(e)committing an indictable offence whilst on bail (five counts);
(f)armed robbery (four counts);
(g)possessing a drug of dependence (three counts);
(h)dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime (three counts);
(i)intentionally causing injury;
(j)recklessly causing injury;
(k)kidnapping;
(l)making a threat to kill;
(m)unlicensed driving; and
(n)possessing a prohibited weapon.

There is one co-accused in this matter, Ali Al-Bab, who was charged alongside the applicant on 9 December 2021 and was granted bail on 8 March 2022. The co-accused is 25 and has a criminal history, including recent convictions on 25 June 2021 for attempted burglary, burglary, robbery, committing an indictable offence on bail, and other dishonesty offending, for which he was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment and 18 months on a community correction order.

The co-accused was charged by informant Selwyn with the following 27 offences:

(a)false imprisonment (eight counts);
(b)theft (five counts);
(c)aggravated home invasion with firearm (three counts);
(d)receiving stolen goods (three counts);
(e)dealing with property suspected to be proceeds of a crime (three counts);
(f)assault with a weapon (three counts);
(g)possessing a drug of dependence; and
(h)making a threat to kill.

The applicant also remains on bail and summons for another eight matters involving 34 charges. The applicant is on bail for four charges for driving-related offending (informant Rinvenuto),[1] and is on summons for 30 charges for driving and violent offending (informants De Boerr, McFarland, Reynolds, Bateman 1 and 2, Gervasoni, and Singh). The most serious of these is…

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 Al-Qassim

Details

AGLC: Re Al-Qassim [2022] VSC 576
Case: [2022] VSC 576
Decision Date: 1 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Al-Qassim involved an application for bail made by the applicant, who was facing multiple serious criminal charges, including aggravated home invasion with a firearm, theft, assault with a weapon, false imprisonment, armed robbery, and intentionally causing injury. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The applicant's bail application was necessitated by the severity of the charges against him and the circumstances surrounding the alleged offences.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant should be granted bail, considering various factors outlined in the Bail Act 1977 (Vic). These factors included the strength of the prosecution's case, the potential for delay in the trial process, the applicant's history of serious offending and breaches of bail, the availability of sureties and employment, and the availability of drug treatment and rehabilitation. The court also had to assess whether there were exceptional circumstances that would warrant granting bail and whether there was an unacceptable risk to the community if bail were granted.

The court carefully weighed all the factors in deciding to refuse the applicant's bail application. The court found that the prosecution had a strong case against the applicant, supported by substantial evidence. The history of serious offending and previous breaches of bail indicated a pattern of non-compliance with the conditions of bail. Additionally, the court concluded that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant bail, and that the risk to the community was too high if the applicant were to be released on bail. Consequently, the court determined that the applicant posed an unacceptable risk to the community and denied the bail application.

The final orders of the court were that the applicant remain in custody until the conclusion of his criminal proceedings. The court's decision was based on the balance of all the relevant factors, particularly the strength of the prosecution case, the applicant's history of offending, and the potential risk to the community if bail were granted.

Orders