Re Dib - [2019] VSC 11

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL LAW DIVISION

S CR 2018 0330

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1997

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by MAHMOUD DIB

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	25 January 2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 January 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Dib
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 11

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Whether a compelling reason justifying bail – Whether applicant, if bailed, presents an unacceptable risk – Application opposed – Applicant has family and business interstate to support – Applicant has criminal and bail history demonstrating indifference to orders of courts – Compelling reason established, but applicant is an unacceptable risk – Proposed conditions of bail proposed could not mitigate risk to be not unacceptable – Bail refused – Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4AA, 4C, 4D, 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr G A Georgiou SC	Dib & Associates
For the Respondent	Mr P McKimmie	Victoria Police Legal Services

HIS HONOUR:

This is an application for bail by Mahmoud Dib, who was arrested and charged on 15 November 2018 with 23 offences concerning events which occurred between 29 November 2017 and 10 October 2018. The charges were originally as follows: stalking; using a carriage service to harass; refusing to leave a place after warning; threatening to inflict serious injury (two charges); unlawful assault; stating a false address when requested; theft of a motor vehicle; theft from a motor vehicle; handling stolen goods; driving while disqualified (two charges); using a firearm in a populous place; recklessly engaging in conduct endangering life; using a handgun without a licence; storing a firearm in an insecure manner; possessing cartridge ammunition without a licence; failing to answer bail; contravening bail conduct conditions (two charges); committing an indictable offence whilst on bail; using an unregistered motor vehicle; and using a false document. The informant in the matter is Senior Constable Scott Sheedy.

Following the events that gave rise to these charges, the applicant is also now the respondent to two personal safety intervention orders which name Richard Grieve and Mason Roberts as affected persons. They are known to the applicant through business associations.

At the time these offences are alleged to have been committed, the applicant was on bail in respect of two outstanding matters. At the time of his arrest for the offences charged by the informant Sheedy, the applicant was subject to bench warrants in relation to those two outstanding matters. He is now remanded in relation to all three matters.

The first of those outstanding matters involves charges of criminal damage, wilful damage and theft, and relates to events which occurred on 15 January 2017. The applicant was charged on summons in relation to these matters on 8 May 2017 by Senior Constable Ilona Day.

The second of the outstanding matters relates to charges of driving while suspended and driving…

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 Dib

Details

AGLC: Re Dib [2019] VSC 11
Case: [2019] VSC 11
Decision Date: 25 January 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re Dib, the applicant, Dib, sought bail from the County Court of Victoria. The nature of the dispute involved Dib's application for bail while facing charges related to serious criminal offences. The court was tasked with determining whether there was a compelling reason to grant Dib bail and whether Dib, if granted bail, would present an unacceptable risk to the community.

The legal issues before the court included assessing whether Dib had established a compelling reason for bail, as well as evaluating whether Dib, if released on bail, would present an unacceptable risk to the community. The court needed to weigh the compelling reason against the potential risks associated with Dib's release.

The court found that although Dib had established a compelling reason to be granted bail, the applicant's criminal and bail history, which demonstrated a disregard for court orders, indicated that Dib presented an unacceptable risk to the community. The proposed conditions of bail could not sufficiently mitigate this risk to make Dib an acceptable risk for release. Consequently, the court concluded that Dib's application for bail should be refused. The decision was grounded in the provisions of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic), specifically sections 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4AA, 4C, 4D, and 4E.

Orders