Re application for bail by Rahman - [2020] VSC 748

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2020 0281

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977
and
IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by Tahmid RAHMAN

---

JUDGE:	COGHLAN JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6 and 9 November 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	9 November 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re application for bail by Rahman
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 748

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Murder – Exceptional circumstances not established – Bail refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr L W G Hartnett	Papa Hughes Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr D Glynn	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

On 9 November 2020 I refused Tahmid Rahman’s (‘the applicant’) application for bail and said I would publish my reasons. These are those reasons.

Introduction

On 21 October 2020, he was charged with common law murder and, in the alternative, statutory murder under s 3A of the Crimes Act 1958, an offence which involves the unintentional killing of another person in the course or furtherance of a crime of violence. In this matter, the relevant crime is identified as aggravated burglary.

There are two co-accused in this matter, Adam Tiba and Abdullah Hammoud.

The applicant has been in custody since the date of his arrest. On 27 October 2020, he filed an application for bail in this Court.[1]
[1]Only the Supreme Court, or a court committing a person for trial, can grant bail to a person accused of murder - Bail Act 1977, s 13(2) (the ‘Act’).

The progress of this matter is still at an early stage, being next listed for a committal case conference and committal mention in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 24 February 2021. The brief of evidence is due to be served by 13 January 2021.

The alleged offending
Background

At 11.30 pm on 23 June 2020, Lorenzo Tigani and Dimitrios Pramatias attended Lakeside Drive in Roxburgh Park to purchase two pounds of cannabis from the co-accused Mr Tiba and Mr Hammoud. Mr Pramatias requested to see the cannabis and Mr Tiba then produced a .22 sawn-off rifle, which he pointed at Mr Tigani. A scuffle ensued, during the course of which stab wounds were inflicted on both Mr Tiba and Mr Hammoud. Mr Tigani took possession of the rifle.

Mr Tiba and Mr Hammoud fled from the scene and presented at the Emergency Department of the Northern Hospital. Mr Tiba was treated for a puncture wound to his back, whilst Mr Hammoud was treated for two puncture wounds to his right calf. Both men refused to cooperate with the police, except to indicate that there had been an incident in Roxburgh Park.

Cell tower evidence is relied upon to demonstrate that mobile phones registered to Mr Tiba and Mr Hammoud were in the vicinity of Lakeside Drive in Roxburgh Park between 11.20 pm and 11.40 pm on 23 June 2020.

It…

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 Rahman

Details

AGLC: Re application for bail by Rahman [2020] VSC 748
Case: [2020] VSC 748
Decision Date: 9 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re application for bail by Rahman involved an application by the applicant, Rahman, to be granted bail while awaiting trial for the alleged murder of a person. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue before the court was whether exceptional circumstances existed to warrant the grant of bail to Rahman, despite the serious nature of the offence charged.

In considering the application, the court examined the principles governing bail decisions in cases involving serious indictable offences. It noted that the onus was on the applicant to establish that there were exceptional circumstances which justified the grant of bail. The court considered various factors, including the seriousness of the offence, the strength of the evidence against the applicant, and the potential impact of the applicant’s release on the community. Ultimately, the court found that the applicant had not demonstrated the requisite exceptional circumstances to warrant the grant of bail.

The court found that the evidence against Rahman was strong, indicating a high likelihood of conviction if the case proceeded to trial. Additionally, the court noted that the offence of murder was inherently serious, and the potential impact of Rahman’s release on the community was significant. Consequently, the court concluded that Rahman had not satisfied the threshold for bail in this matter. The application was therefore refused, and Rahman was to remain in custody pending the outcome of the trial.

Orders