Re Saputra - [2017] VSC 433

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2017 0118

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977
v
IN THE MATTER of an Application for bail by BAMBANG SAPUTRA	Applicant

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 July 2017
DATE OF RULING:	28 July 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	RE Application for Bail by Bambang Saputra
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 433

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Attempting to import commercial quantity of cocaine – Applicant prima facie entitled to bail under the Bail Act 1977 – Whether applicant ‘unacceptable risk’ of failing to answer bail – Parity with co accused, a number of whom were granted bail – Strong ties to the community despite absence of Australian citizenship – Conditions able to be imposed to reduce risk of absconding – Statutory presumption in favour of bail not rebutted – Bail granted – Bail Act s 4(1) – Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) ss 11.1 and 307.1.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr I. Hill QC and Mr D. Hannan	Ondrik Larsen Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr S. Moglia	Office of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

HIS HONOUR:

Bambang Saputra is a 29 year old applicant for bail. His application is supported by affidavit material from his solicitor and members of his family. The application is opposed on behalf of the informant.

On 1 June 2017 the applicant was arrested in New South Wales and charged that on 6-7 December 2016 in Victoria he attempted to import a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, namely cocaine. He was remanded in custody and extradited to Victoria.

On 23 June 2017, following an application for bail to the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, the application was refused on the basis that the risk that that the applicant would fail to appear to answer bail was unacceptable.

It is common ground that pursuant to s 4(1) of the Bail Act 1977, the applicant is prima facie entitled to bail. The onus of displacing that entitlement by establishing an unacceptable risk that the applicant would fail to appear in answer to bail lies with the respondent to this application.

The charges arise from operations conducted by the Joint Organised Crime Task Force between September 2016 and January 2017. Two operations were conducted by the JOCTF known as Barada and Trapani. They commenced September 2016 and concluded in January 2017. The broad facts relevant to the applicant and several of his alleged accomplice were summarised by Weinberg AP in dealing with two related applications for bail (Youkhana [2017] VSC 406 and Tawfik [2017] VSC 405). Being two of the applicant’s most immediate accomplices.

The activity targeted by the investigation was the attempted importation by sea from China of 187.9 kilograms of cocaine on the ship Kaiyo Maru No.8 (KM8). It is alleged that a boat was to travel from the Victorian coast and meet the ship at sea…

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 Saputra

Details

AGLC: Re Saputra [2017] VSC 433
Case: [2017] VSC 433
Decision Date: 28 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Saputra involved an application for bail in relation to charges of attempting to import a commercial quantity of cocaine. The applicant faced the prospect of a significant custodial sentence if convicted. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant was an unacceptable risk of failing to answer bail, as required by the Bail Act 1977. This determination hinged on whether the statutory presumption in favour of bail could be rebutted under the circumstances of the case.

The court considered various factors, including the nature and seriousness of the offence, the applicant's ties to the community, and the risk of reoffending. Despite the absence of Australian citizenship, the applicant had strong ties to the community, including family and employment. The court noted that several co-accused had been granted bail, and there was a parity in their respective cases. The court was satisfied that the applicant was not an unacceptable risk of failing to answer bail. It found that appropriate conditions could be imposed to mitigate the risk of absconding, thus ensuring the applicant's appearance in court.

Upon finding that the statutory presumption in favour of bail had not been rebutted, the court granted the applicant bail. This decision was grounded in the understanding that the applicant had a strong likelihood of being able to comply with bail conditions. The court's ruling emphasised the importance of considering individual circumstances in bail applications and the potential for tailored conditions to address specific risks.

The final orders included the release of the applicant on bail, subject to specific conditions designed to ensure compliance and reduce the risk of absconding or reoffending.

Orders