JUDGE:	Jane Dixon J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17 July 2020
DATE OF RULING:	30 July 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re application for bail by Brookman
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 470

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Charges of providing support or resources to a terrorist organisation and performing services in support or promotion of an offence against s 6 of the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment Act 1978 (Cth) – Delay – Requirement to show exceptional circumstances – Whether exceptional circumstances made out – Whether unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of any person, or committing an offence while on bail, or fail to surrender himself into custody – Exceptional circumstances made out – Unacceptable risk – Bail refused – Criminal Code (Cth) ss 102.7; Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment Act 1978 (Cth) ss 6, 7(1)(e); Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 15AA, 15AB; Bail Act 1977 ss 1B, 3AAA and 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr N Robinson QC and Mr S Ginsbourg	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P Morrissey SC and Ms G Morgan	Stary Norton Halphen

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

This is the first application for bail by Adam Brookman (‘the applicant’). He is charged with one charge of providing support or resources to a terrorist organisation[1] and one charge of performing services in support or promotion of an offence against s 6 of the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978 (Cth).[2]
[1]Criminal Code Act1995 (Cth) s 102.7(1).
[2]Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act1978 (Cth) s 7(1)(e) repealed by Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Act 2014.

The applicant is an Australian citizen who travelled to Syria via Turkey in 2014. He was in Syria on 29 June 2014 when Abu Bakr al Baghdadi declared a caliphate on behalf of Islamic State (‘IS’).

An affidavit[3] (Exhibit 2) prepared by Detective Leading Senior Constable Ryan Forde (‘DLSC Forde’) sets out the charges the applicant faces and summarises the nature of his alleged offending:[4]

4.Police allege that BROOKMAN was in Syria between March 2014 and January 2015. In the period May – November 2014 he was involved with armed jihadi militant groups who were fighting, against the Syrian government and other State and non-State actors in the Syrian conflict, and in relation to the period of August to November 2014, in support of Islamic State.
5.When BROOKMAN travelled to Syria in March 2014, there is evidence to suggest he was initially providing medical services in Aleppo. In early May 2014, BROOKMAN attended boot camp training including weapons training and religious classes. From at least mid-May 2014, it is alleged that BROOKMAN joined a group of predominantly Chechen and North Caucasian fighters located in Syria.…

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 application for bail by Brookman

Details

AGLC: Re application for bail by Brookman [2020] VSC 470
Case: [2020] VSC 470
Decision Date: 30 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court, Brookman sought bail in relation to charges of providing support or resources to a terrorist organisation and performing services in support or promotion of an offence against section 6 of the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment Act 1978 (Cth). The court was required to determine whether exceptional circumstances existed to grant bail and whether the applicant presented an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of any person, committing an offence while on bail, or failing to surrender himself into custody.
The court found that the applicant had not shown exceptional circumstances for bail as required under the Bail Act 1977. The applicant had been aware of the charges for some time and had chosen not to present himself to police, which resulted in a warrant for his arrest. The court also found that the applicant presented an unacceptable risk to the community. The applicant had expressed support for terrorist organisations, and the court considered that he would be likely to engage in further offending if released on bail. The court therefore refused the applicant bail.

The court's decision was based on the nature and seriousness of the charges, the risk to the community, and the applicant's history of failing to comply with legal obligations. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances for bail, and that his release on bail would present an unacceptable risk to the community. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that those charged with serious offences are held to account and that the safety and welfare of the community are protected.

Orders