Re Moustafa (Bail Application) - [2025] VSC 638

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2025 0214

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by KHALED MOUSTAFA

---

JUDGE:	Beale J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 October 2025
DATE OF RULING:	10 October 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Moustafa (Bail Application)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 638

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Bail — Whether exceptional circumstances exist justifying grant of bail — Charges include trafficking a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine and trafficking a commercial quantity of cocaine — Where at time of alleged offences applicant on parole — Where offences for which parole was granted included trafficking in a large commercial quantity of MDMA and 3 counts of trafficking in a commercial quantity of various drugs of dependence — Where parole was revoked — Where circumstantial prosecution case on major charges has reasonable prospects of success — Where sentence on major charges if convicted will exceed time on remand — Where applicant has history of illicit drug use — Where residential drug program available — Exceptional circumstances not established — Unacceptable risk — Bail refused — Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss, 3AAA, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E, Item 6 of Schedule 1.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr Dermot Dann KC	Haines & Polites Lawyers
For the Respondent	Ms Chrisanthi Paganis	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

BACKGROUND

This is a bail application where the applicant, Khaled Moustafa, is charged with the following offences, all allegedly committed on 17 June 2024:
1.Breach of parole;
2.Dealing with the proceeds of crime;
3.Possession of methylamphetamine;
4.Possession of heroin;
5.Possession of cartridge ammunition;
6.Prohibited person possess firearm;
7.Trafficking a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine;
8.Trafficking a commercial quantity of cocaine;
9.Possession of cannabis.
The applicant has been in custody continuously since 17 June 2024.
His previous applications for bail in the Magistrates’ Court on 17 April 2025 and in the County Court on 24 July 2025 were unsuccessful.
His County Court trial is listed to commence on 27 April 2026.

Bail Test

Because the applicant is charged with trafficking a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine and trafficking a commercial quantity of cocaine, he must establish exceptional circumstances which justify a grant of bail.[1]
[1] Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss, 4AA, 4A, Item 6 of Schedule 1.
The applicant relies on a combination of circumstances set out below to prove exceptional circumstances.[2]
[2]Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 3AAA, 4A.
The respondent disputes the existence of exceptional circumstances. Alternatively, the respondent alleges that there is an unacceptable risk that, if the applicant were granted bail, he would:[3]
·Commit a Schedule 1 or 2 offence, namely, trafficking drugs in a large commercial quantity or commercial quantity; and
·Endanger the safety or welfare of others by trafficking drugs and possessing firearms.
[3]Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 4D, 4E.

Chronology

It is convenient at this stage to set out a chronology of…

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 Moustafa (Bail Application)

Details

AGLC: Re Moustafa (Bail Application) [2025] VSC 638
Case: [2025] VSC 638
Decision Date: 10 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re Moustafa, the applicant sought bail pending appeal against conviction and sentence. The applicant was on parole at the time of the alleged offences, which included trafficking in a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine and trafficking in a commercial quantity of cocaine. The parole was granted in relation to offences involving trafficking in a large commercial quantity of MDMA and three counts of trafficking in a commercial quantity of various drugs of dependence. The applicant's parole was subsequently revoked. The prosecution case on the major charges had reasonable prospects of success, and the sentence if convicted would exceed the time spent on remand. The applicant had a history of illicit drug use, and there was a residential drug program available.

The court was required to decide whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify the grant of bail. The applicant argued that bail should be granted as there were no exceptional circumstances to justify refusal. The prosecution contended that bail should be refused due to the unacceptable risk of reoffending and the significant nature of the charges. The court considered the nature and seriousness of the alleged offences, the applicant's history of drug use and offending, and the risk of reoffending if released on bail.

The court found that the applicant's history of drug use and offending, as well as the significant nature of the charges, indicated a high risk of reoffending if released on bail. The court held that the exceptional circumstances required to justify the grant of bail had not been established. The risk of reoffending was deemed unacceptable, and bail was refused.

The court made orders that the applicant remain in custody pending the outcome of the appeal against conviction and sentence. The court noted that the applicant's parole had been revoked, and the risk of reoffending was high. The court also noted that a residential drug program was available, but this did not outweigh the risk of reoffending if the applicant was released on bail.

Orders