Re Ferman
[2008] VSC 612
•23 December 2008
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1441 of 2008
BAIL APPLICATION
IN THE MATTER of the Crimes Act 1958
- and -
IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977
- and -
IN THE MATTER OF an Application for Bail by Hizir FERMAN
---
JUDGE: | Coghlan J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 18 December 2008 | |
DATE OF RULING: | 23 December 2008 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Ferman v R | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2008] VSC 612 | |
---
Criminal law – Bail – Charged with being a prohibited person in possession of an unregistered firearm - Prima facie entitlement to bail – s. 4(2) Bail Act 1977– Unacceptable risk – Bail refused.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr A. Tinney | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For Hizir Ferman | Mr D. Sheales | Theo Magazis & Associates |
HIS HONOUR:
Hizir Ferman, by application dated 4 December 2008 you made application to this Court for bail.
You have been in custody since 16 April 2008 charged with offences arising out of your apprehension on that date as a passenger in a car being driven by Kevin Farrugia in Widford Street, Glenroy. When observed, you were in the front passenger seat of the car and Farrugia was driving. The car was intercepted by members of the Special Operations Group. One police member made the following observations:
“At this time I observed Ferman arching back in his seat. He was reaching with his right hand in what appeared to be his waist area. It appeared as though he had removed something from that area and placed it to his right, either in the centre console or down between the seats.”
When the car was searched by the informant, Acting Detective Sergeant Mark Nichols, he said:
“I then looked through the console area of the vehicle and observed a mobile phone in the centre console. I could also see the butt of a silver coloured semi-automatic pistol resting next to the seatbelt clip between the passenger seat and the centre console.”
Also recovered in a black “bumbag”, which had been seen on the lap of Farrugia was a loaded .357 calibre Smith & Wesson Magnum revolver. The semi-automatic pistol was loaded and cocked. The pistol was a 9mm calibre Norinco semi-automatic handgun.
When interviewed, you denied any knowledge of the firearms. You were remanded in custody. Originally, you were charged with the possession of both firearms, but you were discharged in relation to the Smith & Wesson revolver at committal on 20 October 2008. There is some DNA evidence which is apparently under challenge. It would indicate that the DNA extracted from a swab taken from the pistol cannot exclude you, but can exclude Farrugia.
Although originally it had been suggested on the application that the Crown case was weak, Mr Sheales of counsel who appeared on your behalf on the application conceded that the case against you is moderate.
It had also been argued in the affidavit supporting the application that Kevin Farrugia had admitted ownership of both weapons and that would diminish the Crown case. A statutory declaration was declared on 23 October 2008, i.e. a few days after the committal. Farrugia had also pleaded guilty to the possession of both firearms.
That matter was not pressed before me. The mere production of the statutory declaration cannot take the matter much further. It is untested and I am of the view that until such time that Farrugia is called and tested, it will not carry much weight.
The major matters relied upon by Mr Sheales were that you have an entitlement to bail. It was argued that although your criminal history is substantial when considering the dual associated risks, I would need to be satisfied that you were an unacceptable risk of re-offending or of being a danger to the community. In deciding in particular whether you were an “unacceptable” risk, I would need to take into account a part of the necessary balancing exercise that it appears likely that you will be required to serve between 16 and 18 months before trial. You have a case conference in the County Court in January 2009 and it is likely to be well into 2009 before you will get a trial date. That appears to be so even though your trial would take less than a week.
In support of that argument, Mr Sheales submitted that although you have a prior conviction for being a prohibited person in possession of an unregistered firearm, even if you were convicted, you would not receive a sentence (perhaps non-parole period) very much greater than 18 months. I am not all that sure about that, as the offence carries a maximum of 15 years imprisonment and your prior conviction was only on 30 March 2004, having occurred on 19 December 2003.
The circumstances of the offending were very similar to those alleged here. They involved the possession of a loaded semi-automatic handgun in a car. The handgun was down the front of your trousers.
At the time of the commission of that offence, you were on parole. You were released after serving the above sentence on 1 December 2004. You were on parole at that time for matters which occurred earlier.
You breached that parole and were returned to prison on 16 February 2005. You remained in custody until 25 July 2007. You had, on that day, been discharged by the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on one charge of murder. Your detention between February 2005 and July 2007 related either to your cancelled parole or due to the fact that you had been charged with murder. Apart from the possible relevance to that period of detention, the murder charge has nothing whatsoever to do with this application.
I would not surmise what sentence is likely if you are convicted of this offence and whether or not it is likely that you would have served a substantial portion of any possible sentence before trial. You could well receive a very substantial sentence if you are convicted of this offence. This is not one of those cases where it could be said with some certainty that any possible sentence would be well served prior to trial.
Mr Sheales’ submission, however, does highlight the fact that up to 18 months will have elapsed before trial. That is a powerful consideration and our system ought operate to ensure that delays for short matters such as this are not inordinate.
The Crown has the onus in this case. You have a prima facie entitlement to bail. The Crown submits that you are an unacceptable risk.
In the affidavit in opposition to an application for bail sworn on 16 December 2008 by Mr Anthony Gerard Rooney, a solicitor in the Office of Public Prosecutions, the following paragraph appears:
“Grounds for Opposing Bail.
3. The Crown opposes this application for bail on the grounds that:
·There is an unacceptable risk that the applicant, if released on bail, would endanger the safety or welfare of members of the public.
·There is an unacceptable risk that the applicant, if released on bail, would commit an offence whilst on bail.
·There is an unacceptable risk that the applicant, if released on bail, would fail to surrender himself into custody in answer to his bail.
·That there is an unacceptable risk that the applicant, if released on bail, would interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice whether in relation to himself or any other person.
The scheme of the Bail Act 1977 (“the Act”) is such that, except for circumstances not relevant here, an accused is entitled to bail pursuant to s 4(1) of the Act. The exception is set out in s 4(2)(d) of the Act as follows:
“(d) if the court is satisfied –
(i) that there is an unacceptable risk that the accused person if released on bail would - fail to surrender himself into custody in answer to his bail; commit an offence whilst on bail; endanger the safety or welfare of members of the public; or interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice whether in relation to himself or any other person;
…
(iii) that it has not been practicable to obtain sufficient information for the purpose of deciding any question referred to in this subsection for want of time since the institution of the proceedings against him.”
It is to be noted that here the Crown relies upon each of the circumstances in that paragraph.
Mr Rooney exhibited to his affidavit –
(1) A statement of the informant, Acting Detective Mark Nichols.
(2) The Victoria Police LEAP report relevant to you.
(3) A chronology prepared by Mr Rooney as to your criminal conduct.
(4) A schedule of relevant events.
(5) A copy of the charge.
Mr Rooney has listed the risks said to be unacceptable in an order different from the Act and Mr Tinney said in argument that the order of the risks had been set out in a descending order. I think it is fair to say, though, that he did not particularly press the risk of failing to answer bail.
It does seem to me that the Crown would have to satisfy me that one or more of the three risks were unacceptable. The question of the risk of failing to answer bail would not, of itself, have carried the day. There is probably a risk, your history as a young man in relation to bail is pretty unsatisfactory. In a balancing exercise of whether it was an unacceptable risk necessitating your retention in custody for about 18 months prior to trial is another thing.
In its case, the Crown called the informant, Acting Detective Sergeant Nichols, to give evidence. He gave evidence that you are a suspect for two non-fatal shooting including the shooting which had taken place about a week prior to your arrest and another which had occurred on 29 March 2008.
At the moment, your status as a suspect is based upon police intelligence. No statements have been obtained from witnesses who implicate you, and you have not been interviewed.
It is because of those suspicions that you are regarded as a risk of interfering with witnesses. Since the witnesses of relevance in your present case are almost all members of the police force and the most critical witness a member of the Special Operations Group, the risk of you interfering in relation to this case seems minimal.
It cannot be ignored, however, that in relation to this matter two declarations have been submitted. The first of those was in the name of Mark Zelmanovic. It was dated 14 May 2008 and in it, Zelmanovic claimed ownership of the pistol. Zelmanovic has since admitted that the statutory declaration was false.
It appears that you and your solicitors accept that to be so because you now seek to rely upon a very similar statutory declaration from Farrugia. In view of the earlier statutory declaration, in general I approach the position somewhat cynically, particularly since Farrugia waited until after committal to come forward ie. he was prepared to have an innocent man serve 6 months.
Without attributing blame to you, one attempt to pervert the course of justice by those around you has already taken place.
You have substantial prior convictions. You are now 27 years of age. Your criminal history commenced in the Children’s Court a few days after your 17th birthday. You were involved in offences involving weapons and in company with others. In late 1998 you committed an armed robbery when armed with a tomahawk. It was during the period following that that you failed to answer bail on a number of occasions. You committed a number of robberies and another armed robbery in that period.
Not long after your 18th birthday you were sentenced to three months in a Youth Training Centre. Within a few months of that, as a result of two armed robberies, robbery, attempted robbery and various assaults, you were sentenced to imprisonment. You probably went into custody about September 1999 and were released on parole in February 2001.
In July 2001 you were involved in an attempted armed robbery. You were not released on bail and were sentenced as in November 2002. That offending occurred whilst on parole and breached the parole. You were released in June 2003 and then arrested for prior offences of being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm in December 2003.
I attach to my reasons as Appendix 1 and 2 Exhibits AGR3 and AGR4 which were exhibited to the affidavit of Anthony Gerard Rooney. Those exhibits set out a “Chronology of Ferman’s Criminal Conduct” (Appendix 1) and “Schedule of Relevant Events (Bail)” (Appendix 2). Those documents set out in detail not only your offending but the details of the various orders you have breached.
Your history shows that you have spent a large portion of your time in recent years in custody. You have not taken advantage of being released on a Community-Based Order or on parole. You have breached that Community-Based Order and three paroles. As a youth, you had a very poor record of answering bail, but I have not placed much weight on that. You have a number of convictions for armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, robbery and assault offences. You have used a knife, tomahawk and screwdriver. You graduated to a semi-automatic pistol in March 2004. When sentenced on that occasion, you stated: “Do you think 12 months is going to stop me, youse dogs”. I accept that there is a bit of bravado involved in situations such as that, but it does give an inkling into your attitude to firearm type offences.
The similarity between your offending on that occasion and the alleged offending on the present occasion cannot be avoided. You still have to face the Court for that alleged offence and as I have already said, face a delay of about 18 months. On the other hand, the matters put forward on your behalf about your possible business was disputed by the Crown and not persisted with on the application before me, you would not return to a particularly stable background.
It is submitted on your behalf that you are entitled to bail, and that is so. It is a case which turns on the question of whether the Crown has established that you are an unacceptable risk, in particular you would endanger the safety or welfare of members of the public; or commit an offence whilst on bail.
It was submitted on your behalf that conditions could be imposed on your bail which would reduce the risk of your re-offending and being a danger to the public so that any identified risk would be no longer unacceptable.
It was suggested in particular that a curfew imposed by such a condition would have a great effect. The only difficulty with such a condition is that it is virtually unenforceable. Such a condition depends upon accepting the force of the proposition that if you are found breaching the condition, then your bail will almost certainly be cancelled.
It is also suggested that a surety in the sum of $100,000 and reporting conditions could be used to support your position. I accept that I am obliged to have regard to the proposition that if you are not granted bail, you will be detained for a long time before trial.
In assessing the matters set out in s 4(2)(d)(i), I am bound by s 4(3):
“(3) In assessing in relation to any event mentioned in subsection (2)(d)(i) whether the circumstances constitute an unacceptable risk the court shall have regard to all matters appearing to be relevant and in particular, without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing, to such of the following considerations as appear to be relevant, that is to say-
(a) the nature and seriousness of the offence;
(b) the character, antecedents, associations, home environment and background of the accused person;
(c) the history of any previous grants of bail to the accused person;
(d) the strength of the evidence against the accused person;
(e) the attitude, if expressed to the court, of the alleged victim of the offence to the grant of bail.”
In having regard to those matters, the nature and seriousness of the offence are important. The case is serious, involving an offence which carries a maximum of 15 years’ imprisonment. The nature of the offence involves the carrying of a semi-automatic, fully loaded handgun at night in suburban Melbourne.
Your character, antecedents etc. do not assist you. Even your home environment involves the feature that your father was recently imprisoned for similar offences. The other two relevant considerations, (c) and (d), do not have much significance one way or the other.
In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that you are an unacceptable risk of being a danger to the public and of re-offending. As I said in argument, in your case these two matters are very clearly linked, but I do make a positive finding against you with respect to both of them. In carrying out the balancing exercise which I am obliged to, neither the proposed conditions nor delay reduce the level of risk below that of unacceptable.
Your application for bail is refused.
APPENDIX 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE
IN THE MATTER of the BAIL ACT 1977
- and –
IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by HIZIR IBERY FERMAN
EXHIBIT NOTE
This is the document marked “AGR3” produced and shown to Peter John Atkinson at the time of swearing his affidavit before me on the 16th day of December 2008
MARK NICHOLS – v – HIZIR FERMAN
CHRONOLOGY OF FERMAN’S CRIMINAL CONDUCT
March 26, 1998 – Date of Offences
On March 26, 1998, FERMAN committed the offences of “assault with a weapon” and “armed robbery”. In summary, the victim was approached by FERMAN and his co-offender in Vine Street, Blackburn. A knife was produced and a cash stolen from the victim.
[On March 17, 1999, FERMAN failed to appear on these charges. On July 26, 1999, FERMAN was sentenced for these offences]
May 11, 1998 – Melbourne Children’s Court
On May 11, 1998, FERMAN appeared in the Melbourne Children’s Court where he was sentenced for the offence of “unlawful possession” (date of offence unknown). He was fined $100 without conviction.
May 22, 1998 – Date of Offence
On May 22, 1998, FERMAN committed the offence of “intentionally cause injury”. In summary, FERMAN and a group of associates were involved in a fight with a group of other males at the Box Hill Recreation Centre. One of the victim’s received a stab wound which punctured his lung.
[On June 25, 1998, FERMAN was sentenced for this offence]
May 30, 1998 – Date of Offences
On May 30, 1998, FERMAN committed the offences of “robbery”, “reckless cause injury” and “reckless conduct endangering serious injury”. In summary, FERMAN and his co-offenders attended a party at South Vermont during which they assaulted the victim and robbed him of 7 grams of cannabis. Several of the victim’s friends came to his aid and this resulted in a large brawl. FERMAN told police in a recorded interview that he smashed 5 to 6 bottles over peoples’ heads during the brawl.
[On December 14, 1999, FERMAN was sentenced for this offence]
June 10, 1998 – Date of Offences
On June 10, 1998, FERMAN committed the offences of “carry regulated weapon”, “trafficking” and “possess heroin”. In summary, FERMAN was searched by police on Whitehorse Road, Box Hill and he was found to be in possession of a knife and a quantity of heroin.
[On June 25, 1998, FERMAN was sentenced for these offences]
June 25, 1998 – Ringwood Magistrates’ Court
On June 25, 1998, FERMAN appeared in the Ringwood Magistrates’ Court where he was sentenced for the offences of “intentionally cause injury” (2 counts), “unlawful assault” (date of offences was 22/5/98), “carry regulated weapon” (knife), “possess dangerous article”, “trafficking heroin”, “unlawful possession”, “theft from shop” (date of offences was 10/6/98). He was convicted and placed on a community based order for 12 months; ordered to perform 250 hours community service; and to comply with some other conditions.
[On December 14, 1999, FERMAN was sentenced for these offences]
October 6, 1998 – Ringwood Magistrates’ Court
On October 6, 1998, FERMAN appeared in the Ringwood Magistrates’ Court where he FAILED TO APPEAR in relation to the charge of “intentionally damage property”. A warrant issued for his arrest.
[On March 1, 1999, FERMAN was sentenced in relation to the FTA]
October 28, 1998 – Date of Offence
On October 28, 1998, FERMAN committed the offence of “armed robbery”. In summary, FERMAN and his co-offender approached the victim who was skateboarding in Lonsdale Street, Melbourne. They demanded he hand over his wallet and the co-offender produced a tomahawk during the offence.
[On November 29, 1999, FERMAN was sentenced for this offence]
November 4, 1998 – Ringwood Children's Court
On November 4, 1998, FERMAN appeared in the Ringwood Children’s Court where he was sentenced for the offence of ‘possess regulated weapon” (date of offence unknown). He was fined $150 without conviction.
February 10, 1999 – Melbourne Children’s Court
On February 10, 1999, FERMAN appeared in the Melbourne Children’s Court where he was sentenced for “use indecent language in public place” (date of offence unknown). He was fined $100 without conviction.
February 25, 1999 – Ringwood Magistrates’ Court
On February 25, 1999, FERMAN FAILED TO APPEAR in the Ringwood Magistrates’ Court in relation to the charge of “robbery”, “reckless cause injury” and “reckless conduct endangering serious injury”. A warrant issued for his arrest.
[On December 14, 1999, FERMAN was sentenced in relation to the FTA]
March 3, 1999 – Ringwood Magistrates’ Court
On March 3, 1999, FERMAN appeared in the Ringwood Magistrates’ Court where he was sentenced for the offence of “FTA” (6/10/98) and “intentionally damage property” (date of offence unknown). He was fined $500 without conviction. [FIRST FTA]
March 17, 1999 – Melbourne Children’s Court
On March 17, 1999, FERMAN FAILED TO APPEAR in the Melbourne Children’s Court in relation to the charge of “assault with a weapon”, “armed robbery” and “reckless cause injury”. A warrant issued for his arrest.
[On December 14, 1999, FERMAN was sentenced in relation to the FTA]
May 14, 1999 – Date of Offences
On May 14, 1999, FERMAN committed the offences of “assault” and “robbery”. In summary, FERMAN and a co-offender were involved in the assault and robbery of three victims at the Ringwood Lake in Ringwood.
[On January 31, 2000, FERMAN was sentenced for these offence]
July 12, 1999 – Date of Offence
On July 12, 1999, FERMAN committed the offence of “armed robbery”. In summary, the victim, who was a pizza delivery driver, was confronted by FERMAN and a co-offender in Orchard Grove, Blackburn South. A knife was produced and the victim was robbed of his takings ($80), wallet ($140), mobile phone and two pizzas.
[On September 22, 1999, FERMAN was sentenced for this offence]
July 26, 1999 – Melbourne Children’s Court
On July 26, 1999, FERMAN appeared in the Melbourne Children’s Court where he was sentenced for the offences of “FTA” (17/3/99), “assault with a weapon” and “armed robbery” (26/3/98). He was sentenced to 3 months Youth Training Centre. [SECOND FTA]
July 30, 1999 – Melbourne Children’s Court
On July 30, 1999, FERMAN appeared in the Melbourne Children’s Court where he was sentenced for the offence of “FTA”. He was sentenced to 3 months Youth Training Centre. [THIRD FTA]
August 2, 1999 – Melbourne Children’s Court
On August 2, 1999, FERMAN appeared in the Melbourne Children’s Court where he was sentenced for the offence of “FTA” (2 counts) and “assault by kicking”. He was sentenced to 3 months Youth Training Centre. [FOURTH & FIFTH FTA]
September 22, 1999 – Melbourne County Court
On September 22, 1999, FERMAN appeared in the Melbourne County Court where he was sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 15 months; pre-sentence detention of 6 days for the offence of “armed robbery” (12/7/99)
November 29, 1999 – Melbourne County Court
On November 29, 1999, FERMAN appeared in the Melbourne County Court where he was sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years, suspended for 6 months, with a non-parole period of 13 months for the offence of “armed robbery” (28/10/98)
December 14, 1999 – Melbourne Magistrates’ Court
On December 14, 1999, FERMAN appeared in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court where he was sentenced to imprisonment for 6 months for the offences of “FTA” (25/2/99), “robbery”, “reckless cause injury” (4 charges), “reckless conduct endangering serious injury” (30/5/98) and “breach of CBO imposed on 25/6/98”. [SIXTH FTA]
January 31, 2000 – Ringwood Magistrates’ Court
On January 31, 2000, FERMAN appeared in the Ringwood Magistrates’ Court where he was sentenced to imprisonment for 12 months for the offences of “unlawful assault” (2 charges), “attempted robbery”, “reckless cause injury” and “robbery” (14/5/99).
February 28, 2001 – Released to Parole
On February 28, 2001, FERMAN was released to parole.
July 24, 2001 – Date of Offences
On July 24, 2001, FERMAN committed the offence of “attempted armed robbery”. In summary, FERMAN went to the toilet block at the Box Hill Central Shopping Centre to buy drugs from the victim. FERMAN told the victim “Just give me everything” before stabbing him in the left hand with a screwdriver. FERMAN also stabbed the victim’s associate in the jaw.
[On November 11, 2002, FERMAN was sentenced for these offences; THIS OFFENCE BREACHED HIS PAROLE]
November 11, 2002 – Melbourne County Court
On November 11, 2002, FERMAN appeared in the Melbourne County Court where he was sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years and 4 months with a non-parole period of 17 months; pre-sentence detention was 475 days for the offence of “attempted armed robbery” (24/7/01).
June 2, 2003 – Released to Parole
On June 2, 2003, FERMAN was released to parole after serving the sentence imposed for the offence of “attempted armed robbery” (24/7/01).
December 19, 2003 – Date of Offence
On December 19, 2003, FERMAN committed the offence of “prohibited person possess a firearm”. At 6.28pm, FERMAN and co-offender Robert MUSSO were intercepted by the Victoria Police Special Operations Group in Cheddar Road, Reservoir. At this time, FERMAN and MUSSO were persons of interest to investigators from the PURANA Task Force. Intelligence indicated that FERMAN and MUSSO were intending to commit a murder and as a result they were intercepted by as a proactive measure to prevent the murder. FERMAN and MUSSO were removed from the vehicle. Police searched FERMAN and MUSSO and located a loaded semi-automatic handgun down the front of FERMAN’s trousers. A loaded .38 calibre revolver was located in the bum bag worn by MUSSO.
[On March 30, 2004, FERMAN was sentenced for this offence; THIS OFFENCE BREACHED HIS PAROLE]
March 30, 2004 – Melbourne County Court
On March 30, 2004, FERMAN appeared in the Melbourne County Court where he was sentenced to imprisonment for 12 months cumulative on his current sentence; pre-sentence detention was 102 days for the offence of “prohibited person possess a firearm” (19/12/03). When FERMAN was sentenced by Judge Wodak, FERMAN shouted to the court “Do you think 12 months is going to stop me, you’se dogs?”
December 1, 2004 – Released to Parole
On December 1, 2004, FERMAN was released to the community on parole after serving the term of imprisonment for “prohibited person possess a firearm” (19/12/03)
February 16, 2005 – Parole Cancelled
On February 16, 2005, FERMAN’s parole was cancelled due to breach of conditions and he was returned to custody.
July 25, 2007 – Released from Custody
On July 25, 2007, FERMAN was released from custody.
April 16, 2008 – Date of Alleged Offence (Current Offence)
On April 16, 2008, it is alleged that FERMAN committed the offence of “prohibited person possess a firearm”. The evidence relied upon by the Crown was the subject of a committal hearing on October 20, 2008.
June 4, 2008 – Melbourne Magistrates’ Court
On June 4, 2008, FERMAN applied for bail. Bail was refused for the following reasons:
- FERMAN was a person of bad character
- FERMAN, on the face of it, is a career criminal
- FERMAN breached bail on several occasions
- FERMAN faces serious charges
- FERMAN has previous convictions for numerous violent offences
- FERMAN’s father is on bail for similar offences
- Associates of FERMAN are like-minded criminals
- FERMAN’s father has serious criminal history
- Strong case against FERMAN as matters currently stand
- Query what FERMAN and other were doing travelling around at midnight with loaded guns
October 20, 2008 – Melbourne Magistrates’ Court
On October 20, 2008, FERMAN was committed for trial on the charge of “prohibited person possess firearm”.
October 24, 2008 – Melbourne Magistrates’ Court
On October 24, 2008, FERMAN again applied for bail. Bail was refused for similar reasons to the refusal on June 4, 2008.
APPENDIX 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE
IN THE MATTER of the BAIL ACT 1977
- and –
IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by HIZIR IBERY FERMAN
EXHIBIT NOTE
This is the document marked “AGR4” produced and shown to Peter John Atkinson at the time of swearing his affidavit before me on the 16th day of December 2008
MARK NICHOLS – v – HIZIR FERMAN
SCHEDULE OF RELEVANT EVENTS (BAIL)
| DATE | EVENT | FTA | FIREARMS | OTHER VIOLENCE & WEAPONS | OTHER OFFENCES | PENALTY/ |
| 26/3/98 | Date of offence – Assault with a Weapon | Knife | Dealt with for these offences on 26/7/99 | |||
| 11/5/98 | Melbourne Children’s Crt Appearance | Unlawful Possession | W/O Conviction Fined $100 | |||
| 22/5/98 | Date of offence – ICI [With a group of associates; used a knife to stab a person causing a punctured lung] | Knife | Dealt with for this offence on 25/6/98 | |||
| 30/5/98 | Date of offence – Robbery, RCI; RCESI [With a group of associates, assaulted and robbed victim of 7 grams of cannabis; admitted he smashed 5-6 beer bottles over people’s heads] | Bottles | Dealt with for these offences on 14/12/99 | |||
| 10/6/98 | Date of offence – Carry Regulated Weapon; Trafficking; Possess Heroin [Police found a knife and heroin on him] | Knife | Dealt with for these offences on 25/6/98 | |||
| 25/6/98 | Ringwood Magistrates’ Crt Appearance | ICI (2 charges) [22/5/98] & Unlawful Assault [22/5/98] Carry Regulated Weapon (Knife) [10/6/98] | Traffick Heroin [10/6/98] | Convicted CBO: 12 mths CSO: 250 hrs Other conditions | ||
| 6/10/98 | Ringwood Magistrates’ Crt Appearance [Intent Damage Property] | FTA | ||||
| 28/10/98 | Date of offence – Armed Robbery [In company with another, stole wallet when armed with a tomahawk] | Tomahawk | Dealt with for this offence on 29/11/99 | |||
| 4/11/98 | Ringwood Children’s Crt Appearance | Possess Regulated Weapon | W/O Conviction Fined $150 | |||
| 10/2/99 | Melbourne Children’s Crt Appearance | Use indecent language in public place | W/O Conviction Fined $100 | |||
| 25/2/99 | Ringwood Magistrates’ Crt Appearance | FTA Warrant Issued [Dealt with on 14/12/99] | ||||
| 1/3/99 | Ringwood Magistrates’ Crt Appearance | FTA [on 6/10/98] | Intentionally damage property | W/O Conviction Fined $500 | ||
| 17/3/99 | Melbourne Children’s Crt Appearance | FTA Warrant Issued [Dealt with on 14/12/99] | ||||
| 14/5/99 | Date of offence – Assault; Robbery; 3 victims | Dealt with for these offences on 31/1/00 | ||||
| 12/7/99 | Date of offence – Armed Robbery [In company with another, stole money & mobile phone from pizza boy whilst armed with knife] | Knife | Dealt with for these offences on 22/9/99 | |||
| 26/7/99 | Melbourne Children’s Crt Appearance | FTA [on 17/3/99] | Assault with Weapon [26/3/98] | YTC: 3 months | ||
| 30/7/99 | Melbourne Children’s Crt Appearance | FTA | YTC: 3 months | |||
| 2/8/99 | Melbourne Children’s Crt Appearance | FTA (x2) | Assault by Kicking | YTC: 3 months | ||
| 22/9/99 | Melbourne County Court Appearance | Armed Robbery [12/7/99] | IMP: 2 yrs, 6 mth | |||
| 29/11/99 | Melbourne County Court Appearance | Armed Robbery [28/1098] | IMP: 2 yrs susp for 6 mths | |||
| 14/12/99 | Melbourne Magistrates’ Crt Appearance | FTA [on 25/2/99] | Robbery | Breach of CBO [imposed on 25/6/98] | IMP: 6 mths | |
| 31/1/00 | Ringwood Magistrates’ Crt Appearance | Unlawful Assault (2 charges) [14/5/99] | IMP: 12 mths | |||
| 28/2/01 | Released to parole [For armed Robbery] | |||||
| 24/7/01 | Date of offence – Attempted Armed Robbery [stabbed victim in hand with screwdriver to try & steal drugs; also stabbed another] | Screwdriver | Dealt with for this offence on 11/11/02 BREACHED PAROLE WITH THIS OFFENCE | |||
| 11/11/02 | Melbourne County Crt Appearance | Att. Armed Robbery [24/7/01] | IMP: 2 yrs 4 mth | |||
| 2/6/03 | Released to parole [For Att. Armed Robbery] | |||||
| 19/12/03 | Date of offence – Prohibited Person Possess a Firearm | Loaded semi-automatic handgun | Dealt with for this offence on 30/3/04 BREACHED PAROLE WITH THIS OFFENCE | |||
| 30/3/04 | Melbourne County Crt Appearance [Refer Sentencing Remarks] | Prohibited Person Possess a Firearm [19/12/03] | IMP: 12 mths cumulative on current sentence (PSD: 102 days) | |||
| 1/12/04 | Released to parole [For Prohibited Person Possess a Firearm] | |||||
| 16/2/05 | Parole Cancelled by Adult Parole Board | Returned to custody | ||||
| 25/7/07 | Released from custody | |||||
| 16/4/08 | Date of alleged offence (CURRENT OFFENCE) – Prohibited Person Possess Firearm | Loaded 9mm Norinco semi-automatic pistol | ||||
| 4/6/08 | Melbourne Magistrates’ Court – Bail application | Bail refused | ||||
| 20/10/08 | Magistrates’ Court – Committal Hearing (CURRENT OFFENCE) | Committed for trial on “prohibited person possess firearm” | ||||
| 24/10/08 | Melbourne Magistrates’ Court – Bail application | Bail refused |
Total number of offences: 36
Total number of FTA: 6
Total number of Breaches of Parole: 3
Total number of Breaches of Community Based Orders: 3
0
0
0