Re Rahman - [2021] VSC 402

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2021 0063

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by TAHMID RAHMAN

---

JUDGE:	Coghlan JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	21 May 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	5 July 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Rahman
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 402

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Murder – New facts and circumstances – Exceptional circumstances made out – No unacceptable risk – Substantial surety – Application granted.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr I. Hill QC with Ms C. Lynch	Papa Hughes Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr P. Pickering	Ms A. Hogan, Solicitor of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

On 9 November 2020 I refused an application for bail by Tahmid Rahman (‘the Applicant’). By notice dated 11 May 2021, the Applicant makes a further application for bail. These reasons should be read in conjunction with my earlier published reasons.[1]
[1]Re application for bail by Rahman [2020] VSC 748.

The Applicant was previously refused bail on the basis that he failed to establish exceptional circumstances that justify the grant of bail. It should be noted that the major imperative at the time I refused bail was whether or not the Applicant would be able to take his VCE exams in custody. Bail was refused in circumstances where I was satisfied that he would be able to complete those exams, and if that matter was removed from the equation, exceptional circumstances could not otherwise be shown.

The Applicant has been charged with murder, said to have occurred on 18 July 2020. He is said to have been in company of two co-accused, Adam Tiba and Abdullah Hammoud, both of whom have been charged with murder and who are presently in custody. It should not be assumed that any decision made by me in this case should have any influence whatsoever in any subsequent applications the co-accused may choose to make, and I decide this case totally related to its own facts and the personal circumstances of the Applicant.

Background

The procedural history, details of the investigation and prosecution case, the applicable law, and the matters personal to the Applicant, including his criminal history and outstanding matters, are summarised in my published reasons from the Applicant’s previous application for bail.[2] They are not repeated here.
[2]Re application for bail by Rahman [2020] VSC 748.

In summary, on 18 July 2020, Adrian Pacione (‘the deceased’) was visiting friends at a residential premises in Lalor when three intruders arrived and attempted to gain entry into the residence. They were unsuccessful in their endeavour and subsequently fired shots through the front window of the residence. The deceased, who was watching television in a back room, was fatally struck by one of the shots.

The Applicant was arrested on, and has been in custody since, 21 October 2020. He was charged…

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 Rahman

Details

AGLC: Re Rahman [2021] VSC 402
Case: [2021] VSC 402
Decision Date: 5 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re Rahman, the applicant was before the Court seeking bail in relation to a charge of murder. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant, who was in custody, sought release on bail pending the determination of the criminal proceedings against him. The legal issues before the court included whether new facts and circumstances had arisen since the applicant’s initial denial of bail, whether those circumstances were exceptional, and whether the applicant posed an unacceptable risk to the community or any person if released on bail. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the applicant could provide substantial surety as required by law.

The court considered the applicant's arguments and the evidence presented, focusing on the new facts and circumstances alleged by the applicant. It was determined that these circumstances were indeed exceptional, providing a strong basis for reconsideration of the bail application. The court also examined the risk assessment, concluding that the applicant did not pose an unacceptable risk to the community or any person if released on bail. Furthermore, the court found that the applicant could provide the necessary substantial surety, satisfying one of the statutory requirements for bail. Given these findings, the court concluded that the applicant met the criteria for bail under the relevant legislation and granted the application. The court's decision was based on a careful balance of the applicant's right to liberty and the need to protect the community.

Orders