Re Application for Bail by Hokafonu
[2020] VSC 543
•27 August 2020
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2020 0184
| IN THE MATTER OF the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) | |
| -and- | |
| IN THE MATTER OF an application for bail by Sione HOKAFONU | |
---
JUDGE: | COGHLAN JA |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 21 August 2020 |
DATE OF ORDERS: | 21 August 2020 |
DATE OF REASONS: | 27 August 2020 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Re Application for Bail by Hokafonu |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2020] VSC 543 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Attempted murder – Possession of unregistered handgun – Exceptional circumstances not established – Bail refused.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | Mr P A Dunn QC | Kaczmarek Grigor Lawyers |
| For the Defendant | Mr J Lewis | Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
HIS HONOUR:
On 21 August 2020 I refused Sione Hokafonu’s (‘the applicant’) application for bail and said I would publish my reasons. These are those reasons.
Introduction
On 3 January 2020, the applicant, was arrested and charged with attempted murder, arson, possessing an unregistered handgun, possessing a prohibited weapon without an exemption (two counts), possessing a drug of dependence (five counts), possessing cartridge ammunition without a licence (two counts), retaining stolen goods, dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime, unlicensed driving and failing to provide assistance in respect of a data storage device.[1]
[1]Some of those charges were initially filed at the Dandenong Magistrates’ Court following execution of search warrant on 24 December 2019, but were later withdrawn and refiled together with the more serious charges upon the applicant’s arrest.
The most serious of the charges arise from an incident said to involve the applicant and two co-accused, Ali Hussein and Ugur Okanlar, on the evening of 1 August 2019, in which the complainant, Rocco Curra, was lured to a residence in Bulleen before being ambushed and shot multiple times while sitting in his car.
The applicant has been in custody since his arrest. On 17 April 2020, he was refused bail at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on the basis that he failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances and, further, that there was a unacceptable risk of the matters identified in s 4E(1) of the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’).
An application for bail in this Court was made on 5 August 2020. As the applicant is charged with attempted murder, a Sch 1 offence under the Act, bail must be refused unless the Court is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail.
The matter is next listed for a four-day contested committal on 6 April 2021 at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court.
The alleged offending
The applicant and co-accused are alleged to be patched members of the Finks Outlaw Motorcycle Group (‘Finks’). The complainant is alleged to be a patched member of the Mongols Outlaw Motorcycle Group (‘Mongols’).
By way of background, at the Sporting Globe in Fountain Gate Shopping Centre on 10 July 2019, the applicant is said to have been involved in a physical altercation in which he assaulted a man wearing a ‘Mongols’ supporter jumper, ripped the jumper off the man and ejected him from the premises. Shortly after, the applicant attended Casey Hospital seeking treatment for a gunshot wound to his right foot. It is believed that the Mongols are responsible for shooting the applicant in the foot, and accordingly, that the shooting of the complainant was retaliation for that incident.
It is the prosecution case that, in the days leading up to the shooting of the complainant, Hussein enlisted his girlfriend at the time, Athar Almatrah, to create a false Instagram profile in the name of ‘Sarah Riccardo’ in order to interact with the complainant and eventually lure him to a specific location under the guise of a date. The account was created on 29 July 2019 and commenced communicating with the complainant’s profile the following day. On 1 August 2019, ‘Sarah’ arranged for the complainant to attend her residence at 59 Bourke Street, Bulleen.
At 9.51pm that evening, the applicant and Hussein, in the company of a third unknown co-offender, allegedly drove a stolen silver BMW along Bourke Street, Bulleen, before parking in adjacent William street with the vehicle facing Bourke Street. At around 10.07pm, the complainant’s vehicle drove past William Street and the stolen BMW followed.
The complainant parked his vehicle outside 61 Bourke Street and remained inside. He sent a message over Instagram to ‘Sarah’ indicating that he was outside her house, to which she responded ‘I’m coming out’.
About 30 seconds after the complainant had parked, the stolen BMW pulled up and stopped in front of his vehicle. It is alleged that the applicant and Hussein exited the stolen BMW carrying firearms and fired a total of twelve shots into the complainant’s vehicle, four of which hit the complainant’s torso and head. The applicant is alleged to have exited the stolen BMW from the rear passenger seat and fired shots through the driver’s side window, while Hussein exited from the front passenger seat and fired through the windscreen.
The complainant sought assistance from neighbouring residents and was subsequently conveyed by ambulance to the Royal Melbourne Hospital. He later underwent emergency surgery to remove a bullet that had lodged in his brain. He has since undergone further surgery to reconstruct his skull, however, a further three projectiles remain lodged in his body.
The shooting was captured on CCTV in operation at a neighbouring property. That footage was later enhanced by police, and is alleged to depict two offenders with body shapes consistent with that of the applicant and Hussein as well as a similar hairline as that worn by applicant. The scene of the shooting was processed, with investigators determining that 9mm handguns were used to fire at least nine shots at the complainant. Police located one bullet fragment, nine fired cartridge cases and two unspent cartridges from the scene.
After the shooting, the applicant and Hussein returned to the stolen BMW and were driven about 700 metres away from the scene by the unknown co-offender, before stopping outside 7 Hodgson Street, Templestowe. There, it is alleged the three men poured petrol over the stolen BMW, set fire to it and fled the scene in a black BMW X5 that was hired in the name of the applicant’s wife on 11 July 2019. The fire was reported to emergency services at 10.19pm.
The prosecution assert, on the basis of call charge records and Eastlink toll data, that on night of the shooting, the applicant, Hussein and the third co-offender travelled in convoy in the stolen BMW and the black BMW X5 along the Eastlink Freeway from Hampton Park to the vicinity of the shooting at the relevant time, remained there for a short period of time, and then returned to the Hampton Park area again via the Eastlink Freeway after the shooting. The applicant was intercepted on 30 July 2019 and 9 August 2019 by police driving the black BMW X5. On the second occasion, the vehicle was impounded as the applicant was found to be driving with a disqualified New South Wales driver licence.
Information regarding the creation of the ‘Sarah Riccardo’ Instagram account was conveyed to police from the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation. That information indicates that the account was registered on 30 July 2019 using Almatrah’s Internet Protocol (IP) address and email address, the latter of which is linked to her known telephone number and home address. It is alleged that both Almatrah and Hussein communicated with the complainant through the fraudulent Instagram account. Furthermore, data obtained from the complainant’s phone indicates that he had several conversations with Almatrah over Instagram discussing ‘Sarah Riccardo’, including on the day of the shooting, in which Almatrah confirmed that she knew Riccardo, that she was a ‘good girl’ and that the complainant would like her.
The investigation into the shooting utilised, among other investigative methods, surveillance devices and telephone intercepts, as well as the execution of search warrants at the residence of each accused and Almatrah’s family home. It is alleged that a listening device in operation at the applicant’s residence on 4 December 2019 recorded the sound of a handgun being racked. On 24 December 2019, a Firearms Prohibition Order was served on the applicant and a search was conducted at his residence in Clyde North. An unregistered Colt .38 Super Automatic pistol was located, leading to the applicant’s arrest and charge on firearm offences. He provided a ‘no comment’ interview on that day and was released, with those charges later being withdrawn and refiled in the present matter. Forensic analysis of the pistol allegedly established that it was one of the firearms used in the shooting.[2] The applicant’s fingerprints were located on the side of the firearm magazine.[3]
[2]Statement of LSC Darren Watson of the Victoria Police Ballistics Unit, exhibited to the Affidavit in Response to Application for Bail sworn by Belinda Joy Beazley dated at BJB-2.
[3]Statement of John Hamilton of the Victoria Police Metropolitan Region Fingerprint Unit, exhibited to the Affidavit in Response at BJB-3.
On 27 December 2019, during the execution of a search warrant at Almatrah’s residence, she was arrested and interviewed in relation to the alleged attempted murder. On 23, 24 and 27 December 2019, a series of communications between Almatrah, Hussein, Okanlar and others allegedly regarding their involvement in the shooting and the extent of Almatrah’s co-operation with police were intercepted and recorded. In particular, Okanlar is alleged to have discussed Almatrah’s police interview with Hussein, including whether she kept up ‘her end of the deal’ by making a ‘no comment’ interview, and agreed to obtain a copy of the recorded interview for Hussein to show to Hokafonu. He is further alleged to have recovered at least one mobile telephone from Almatrah’s residence and, at Hussein’s direction, arranged for the phone to be destroyed. He is recorded confirming the destruction of the phone by Almatrah’s mother to Hussein, stating ‘it’s broken into pieces’ and ‘yeah, when I told her mum about it, she went at it with an axe’. Those conversations gave rise to charges against Okanlar of attempting to pervert the course of justice and assisting an offender in respect of an attempted murder, and other unrelated offences.
Execution of search warrants and arrest
On 3 January 2020, simultaneous search warrants were executed at the residence of each accused and at Almatrah’s family home and they were each arrested. During the execution of the search warrant at the applicant’s residence, police located several mobile phones, a flick knife, firearm ammunition and a small zip lock bag containing green vegetable matter. The applicant refused to provide police with access to one of his mobile phones. Following his arrest, he was conveyed to Melbourne West Police Complex, gave a ‘no comment’ interview and was remanded in custody.
Both co-accused also provided ‘no comment’ records of interview following their arrest. Almatrah was interviewed at the Melbourne West Police Complex and released pending further enquiries.
As stated, the matter is presently listed for a contested committal on 6 April 2021, together with the matters relating to Hussein and Okanlar. However, on 26 June 2020, the complainant participated in a compulsory examination hearing before the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court. The respondent summarises the complainant’s evidence as follows:
·He didn’t remember much.
·He was friends with Almatrah on Instagram.
·Doesn’t remember a Sarah Riccardo.
·Attended the street at night.
·Remembers a small car coming from behind.
·Remembers gun fire.
·Recalls making it to the house.
·He was then in hospital.
·Stated he still had impacts from the injuries and is on anti-seizure medication as a result.
Co-accused
Hussein is 25 years old. He is charged with attempted murder, arson, possessing a drug of dependence, being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm, possessing cartridge ammunition without a licence (two counts) and unlicensed driving. He has a criminal history that is limited to driving offences in 2012 and 2014. On 30 April 2020, he made an application for bail in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court that has been adjourned on three occasions, being presently listed on 14 September 2020.
Okanlar is 32 years old. He is charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice, assisting an offender, cultivating cannabis, possessing cannabis and possessing an imitation firearm as a non-prohibited person. His criminal history includes drugs, firearms and weapons offences. He was granted bail at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 9 January 2020.
The applicant’s background
The applicant is 26 years old and is the eldest of six siblings. He was born in Sydney and resided there until moving to Melbourne in early 2019. He has worked in the scaffolding industry since leaving school. He has three biological children aged 3 years, 2 years and 2 months old and one stepchild aged 6 years old with his partner, Pasepa Tawake. Prior to his remand, he resided with his partner and their children.
The applicant has no criminal history in Victoria. His criminal history in New South Wales includes violence, driving and drug offences. Relevantly, in 2010, he was convicted in the Parramatta District Court of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, arising from an assault on a man in a wheelchair at a train station,[4] for which he was sentenced to a term of four years and six months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years.
[4]See, summary from a New South Wales police database, exhibited to the Affidavit in Response at
BJB-8.
The applicable legislation
Section 4AA(1) of the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’) relevantly provides that the exceptional circumstances test applies to a decision of whether to grant bail to a person accused of a Sch 1 offence. The applicant is charged with attempted murder, which is a Sch 1 offence within the meaning of the Act.[5]
[5]The Act, Sch 1, items 2 and 12.
It follows that the applicant must be refused bail unless, the Court is satisfied by the applicant that exceptional circumstances exist to justify the grant of bail.[6]
[6]Ibid ss 4A(1A) and 4A(2).
The phrase ‘exceptional circumstances’ is not defined in the Act, but may be established by a single circumstance or a combination of circumstances, including matters personal to the applicant; the strength of the Crown case; undue delay in the matter progressing to trial or unusual features of the alleged offending or the investigation.[7] In determining whether exceptional circumstances have been made out, the Court must take into account the ‘surrounding circumstances’ outlined in s 3AAA of the Act.[8]
[7]Re CT [2018] VSC 559 [65].
[8]The Act, s 4A(3).
If the Court is satisfied as to the existence of exceptional circumstances, it must then apply the ‘unacceptable risk’ test.[9] That is, pursuant to ss 4E(1) and 4E(2) of the Act, the Court must refuse bail if it is satisfied by the respondent that there is an unacceptable risk that the applicant would, if released on bail:
(i)endanger the safety or welfare of any person; or
(ii)commit an offence while on bail; or
(iii)interfere with a witness or otherwise obstruct the course of justice in any matter; or
(iv)fail to surrender into custody in accordance with the conditions of bail.
[9]Ibid s 4D(1)(a).
In considering whether any relevant risk is unacceptable, s 4E(3) of the Act requires the Court to again have regard to the ‘surrounding circumstances’ outlined in s 3AAA of the Act, and to consider whether there are any conditions of bail that may be imposed to mitigate the risk so that it is not an unacceptable risk.
Finally, when interpreting the Act, the Court is required to take into account the guiding principles set out in s 1B(1) of the Act.[10]
[10]Ibid s 1B(2).
The applicant’s contentions
The applicant, in the Affidavit in Support of his application, relied on the following matters in combination to show that exceptional circumstances exist to justify his grant of bail:
Delay
The applicant has been on remand since 3 January 2020. By the date of the committal hearing on 6 April 2021, he will have spent 459 days in custody. As at the date of the bail application, he had spent 215 days in custody. Noting that jury trials before this Court remain suspended indefinitely as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, it was submitted that, should the applicant be committed, any trial in this Court is unlikely to take place until 2022. It was submitted that the delay in this matter is exceptional and unacceptable in the circumstances.
Greater risk of contracting COVID-19 in custody
The applicant submitted he is at a greater risk of contracting COVID-19 in custody, particularly as cases of the virus have been confirmed in Victorian prisons and ‘it remains to be seen whether the authorities have managed to contain the virus before it spreads to the general prison population’. The applicant relied on the following observation of Hamill J of the New South Wales Supreme Court in Rakielbakhour v DPP: [11]
Gaols and similar institutions are particularly susceptible to the rapid spread of the COVID-19 virus. It is difficult, if not impossible, to enforce or facilitate the kinds of restrictions currently being encouraged upon people in the community. [12]
[11]Rakielbakhour v DPP [2020] NSWSC 323.
[12]Ibid [14].
The prosecution case is circumstantial
The applicant conceded that, on the present state of the evidence, there is a circumstantial case against him in relation to the attempted murder. However, he submitted:
othe CCTV footage is not clear enough to identify the applicant; and
othe veracity of the findings made by the Victoria Police Forensic Services Department analysts linking the pistol located at the applicant’s residence as one of the firearms used in the shooting, will be the subject of significant cross-examination at the committal hearing.
Availability of a substantial surety
The applicant’s parents are willing to offer a significant surety of $100,000 by way of property.
Lack of relevant prior criminal history
The details of the applicant’s criminal history appear in the respondent’s submissions.
Availability of a stable residence, family support and ties to the jurisdiction.
The applicant proposes to reside with his partner and four children at 37 Kingdom Drive, Cranbourne East if granted bail. It is submitted that he has a stable residence and his young family provide support and strong ties to the community.
In relation to unacceptable risk, the applicant submitted the following:
·The applicant has no history of failing to answer bail.
·There are no allegations of further criminality in the period between the shooting and his arrest on 24 December 2019, save for the unlicensed driving charge on 9 August 2019.
·The applicant is not alleged to have interfered with the complainant or any other witnesses at any time. The allegation of attempting to pervert the course of justice against Okanlar relates to the destruction of a phone belonging to Hussein. There is no allegation that the applicant was involved with that conduct.
·There is no allegation that the applicant attempted to flee the jurisdiction, either during the period between the alleged shooting on 1 August 2019 and his first arrest on 24 December 2019 or before his second arrest on 3 January 2020. It is submitted that the applicant visited family in New Zealand in November 2019 and Fiji in early December 2019 and returned on each occasion.
The applicant asserted that appropriate conditions can be imposed to mitigate risk so that it is not unacceptable. He also relied on the absence of unacceptable risk as a factor relevant to the demonstration of exceptional circumstances.
The respondent’s contentions
The respondent in the Affidavit in Opposition to bail opposed bail on the basis that the applicant has failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances and, moreover, there is an unacceptable risk that of the kind identified in s 4E(1) of the Act.
In response to the applicant’s contentions regarding delay, the respondent conceded that the COVID-19 pandemic will inevitably delay the proceedings, but submitted that such delay is not disproportionate given the strength of the evidence and the seriousness of the allegations. The respondent disputed the contention that the delay in this matter is inordinate or sufficient to establish exceptional circumstances either by itself or in combination with other factors relied upon.
In relation to the assertion that he has no relevant criminal history, the respondent pointed out the applicant was sentenced to an ‘extensive’ custodial sentence for a serious assault on a vulnerable victim in New South Wales, by reference to his conviction for causing grievous bodily harm with intent in 2010.
As far as the applicant’s conduct between the date of the alleged offending and his first arrest, the respondent conceded that there are no formal allegations of further criminality, however the informant outlines three uncharged incidents between October and November 2019 involving the applicant making ‘vague’ threats to an associate regarding a debt and discussing his participation in a brawl. In relation to his having left the jurisdiction to fly overseas on two occasions, the respondent noted that both overseas holidays were prior to his first arrest on 24 December 2019, and the applicant would not have been aware that he was under investigation for the shooting at that time.
The respondent took issue with the characterisation of the applicant as a hardworking family man, stating that investigators believe the applicant is unemployed and did not observe him engaging in work on scaffolding sites during the course of the investigation. Further, it is noted that his intermittent tax return history identifies only small amounts of income since 2015.
With respect to the family support available to the applicant, the respondent noted evidence captured during the investigation suggests that he is involved in an intimate relationship with another woman in New South Wales. While it is unknown whether the applicant’s partner is aware of that relationship, the respondent suggests the information could impact on the availability of the strong family support and ties to the jurisdiction if it became known. There was no further discussion about this matter on the application.
In relation to unacceptable risk, the respondent contended the following.
Endangering the safety or welfare of any person or committing an offence while on bail
The alleged offending involved a planned and callous shooting in a residential street, demonstrating no regard for the complainant’s life or the safety of the general public. In addition, one of the firearms used in the shooting has not been located. Further, the respondent expressed a concern that the applicant may participate in further retribution attacks that could put members of the Mongols or the general public at risk. Police are allegedly aware of tensions between the two groups as a result of the shooting, as well as recent defection of members. Lastly, it is noted that the applicant has a prior conviction for a significant violence offence in New South Wales.
Interfering with a witness or otherwise obstructing the course of justice
The respondent expressed a concern for the safety of the complainant and other witnesses in this matter. In support of this point, the respondent relied on the fact that police have charged Okanlar with attempting to pervert the course of justice in this matter and assert that Hussein, who directed Okanlar to destroy evidence and obtain a copy of Almatrah’s recorded interview, met with the applicant two days later. On this basis, the respondent asserted that the applicant was well aware of the conduct. In addition, it is submitted that, given the applicant’s high ranking in the Finks, he could direct other members to interfere with witnesses on his behalf. The respondent stated that it is ‘quite apparent’ that members of the Finks have attempted to interfere with Almatrah and rely on intercepted conversations in which Okanlar advised Hussein ‘if someone gets arrested, the club will be coming for her’.
Failing to surrender in accordance with the conditions of bail
The applicant only moved to Victoria in early 2019, and he has immediate family and associates residing in New South Wales. He has previously tried to conceal his Victorian address from authorities by instead providing his family address in New South Wales, including to Australian Border Force when he returned to Australia in November 2019. Further, he has previously used aliases to book airline tickets and he did not apply for a Victorian driver licence after moving, instead using a Tongan driver licence. Finally, his connections and associates within the Finks may provide him with assistance to leave Victoria.
The respondent submitted that the imposition of strict bail conditions would not alleviate the risks asserted by the respondent.
Oral submissions
Mr Phillip Dunn QC of Counsel appeared for the applicant before me. He adopted the submissions set out above. He filed a written chronology which supplemented those submissions. He placed particular emphasis on the question of delay which he submitted was inordinate and really unprecedented. That delay taken together with the other COVID-19 factors such as no visits, potential of lock down and risk of exposure to the virus were very important and those matters were enough or almost enough to constitute exceptional circumstances. The other matters of significance were that there was a genuine triable issue as to whether or not the applicant was involved in the shooting.
Mr Dunn accepted that his client did have possession of the Colt .38 Super Automatic pistol on 24 December 2019. Mr Dunn pointed out that the shooting had taken place on 1 August 2019 and that one shell case found at the scene had a different person’s DNA on it and it appeared that the applicant’s phone was in use at a place distant to the shooting. Mr Dunn also emphasised that the applicant would live at home with his wife and four children the youngest having been born in May. He said the applicant had a limited criminal history and had not offended recently. The applicant had not taken flight after the pistol had been seized even though he had been overseas twice. Mr Dunn said no interference with witnesses had been alleged and in any event the significant witnesses were police.
He submitted that when all the above matters were taken together they amounted to exceptional circumstances.
He also relied upon those matters in support of his submission that the applicant could not be shown to be an unacceptable risk if released on bail that he would:
(i)endanger the safety or welfare of any person; or
(ii)commit an offence while on bail; or
(iii)interfere with a witness or otherwise obstruct the course of justice in any matter; or
(iv)fail to surrender into custody in accordance with the conditions of bail.
Further he submitted that the applicant had, in the past, completed 2 and a half years on parole and 1 year on an intensive corrections order. That showed he would be a good candidate to obey any bail conditions which could include a non-association condition and a condition limiting the use of a single telephone. Mr Dunn conceded that the applicant was a member of the Finks but such membership could be adequately managed by a non-association condition. He submitted that that course had been taken in this court in other cases.[13] Examples of what has been done in other cases are of limited assistance.
[13]He referred inter alia to Rean application for bail by Murray [2014] VSC 249.
Mr Dunn further submitted that the applicant strenuously denied any involvement in the offending. Further it would be better in these difficult times for him to be home with his family. He would support himself and his family on JobSeeker payments.
In the written material reliance was placed on the availability of a surety of $100,000. The surety was offered by the applicant’s parents based on their joint ownership of a property in NSW. The question of the surety did not arise at the hearing. I should note there are difficulties about establishing the value of interstate properties. Whether or not an interstate surety can reasonably discharge their responsibilities is questionable. Even assuming that the surety was available it would not have influenced my decision to refuse bail.
Mr Justin Lewis, Crown Prosecutor ,who appeared for the respondent, relied upon the written material but in oral submissions emphasised that the anticipated delay although undesirable was not particularly great having regard to the nature of the offending. A possible trial date in early 2022 could not be said to be extraordinary delay. He next placed emphasis on the necessity of the Court to have regard to surrounding circumstances pursuant to s 3AAA of the Act. In particular he relied upon s 3AAA(1)(a) and (b) relevantly provides:
3AAASurrounding circumstances
(1)
If this Act provides, in relation to a matter,
that a bail decision maker must take into account the surrounding circumstances, the bail decision maker must take into account all the circumstances that are relevant to the matter including, but not limited to, the following—
(a)the nature and seriousness of the alleged offending, including whether it is a serious example of the offence;
(b)the strength of the prosecution case;
…
Mr Lewis submitted that the case was a relatively strong one. The offence was a very serious example of the offending committed in circumstances which were extremely dangerous having involved the use of firearms in a suburban street. He pointed out the surrounding circumstances applied when the court was considering both exceptional circumstances and unacceptable risk. He made further submissions relating to the question of risk.
Conclusions
It is for the applicant to show exceptional circumstances. I am not satisfied that he has done so. I regard the following matters as important:
·There will undesirable delay but it does not, even in combination with the other matters urged, amount to exceptional circumstances.
·The matters flowing from the COVID-19 pandemic are unusual but fall into the same category as delay.
·I regard the prosecution case as being at least reasonably strong.
·This is a serious example of a serious offence which might easily have been a murder.
·The circumstances of the offending were dangerous to the public.
·The applicant is an active member of the Finks.
·He does not appear to have been engaged in a lawful occupation for most of the last 5 years.
·He did not cooperate with the police in providing access to his telephone.
·He has admitted possession of an unregistered handgun which he had concealed in the family home.
·He has not provided accurate addresses when required to do so.
It was urged on me that the imposition of conditions could also be used to support the making out of exceptional circumstances or reduce any risk to not unacceptable level.
To make the position clear the totality of the matters put on the applicant’s behalf, including the imposition of conditions, do not amount to exceptional circumstances.
In any event even if exceptional circumstances were made out, I am satisfied for much the same reasons as set out above that the respondent has shown the applicant is an unacceptable risk of committing further offences whilst on bail
---
0
2
0