Re Sleiman - [2020] VSC 469

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2020 0131

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

-and-

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by IBRAHIM SLEIMAN

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	17 & 25 June 2020 and 29 July 2020
DATE OF RULING:	29 July 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Sleiman
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 469

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Applicant charged with Schedule 1 offence – Whether exceptional circumstances established – Whether applicant, if bailed, presents an unacceptable risk – Application opposed – Current charges serious, violent and random –– Exceptional circumstances established – Risk can be mitigated to an acceptable level on interim basis – Interim bail granted with conditions – Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr M McGrath with Mr W Blake	Furstenburg Law
For the Respondent	Ms R Harper	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

This is an application for bail by Ibrahim Sleiman (the ‘applicant’). He faces 13 charges, brought by Detective Senior Constable Rebecca Norris, primarily arising out of two incidents alleged to have occurred on 5 April 2012 and 31 October 2015, involving two separate and unrelated complainants (the ‘Norris matters’). The remainder of the charges relate to the execution of a search warrant at the applicant’s residence on 16 August 2019, two days after his arrest. All charges are as follows:

·making a threat to inflict serious injury;
·false imprisonment (common law);
·criminal damage;
·intentionally causing injury (two charges);
·indecent assault (two charges);
·kidnapping;
·assault (common law) (two charges);
·making a threat to kill;
·possessing a prohibited weapon; and
·possessing a drug of dependence (cannabis).

Procedural history

The applicant has been in custody since the date of his arrest on 14 August 2019. At the time of his arrest, he was on bail in relation to the following three outstanding matters.

In the first matter, where the informant is Senior Constable Kathryn Heily, the applicant was charged on 15 November 2018 with driving whilst authorisation suspended, driving a motor vehicle not fitted with an approved interlock device, and being learner driver driving a vehicle without an experienced driver (the ‘Heily matters’). He was originally charged on summons but was later granted bail following his arrest for failing to appear on summons on 30 April 2019.

In the second matter, where the informant is Constable Aiden Blake, the applicant is charged with trafficking in MDMA, six counts of possessing a drug of dependence (MDMA, Viagra, Valium, Olanzapine, Oxycodone and ecstasy), committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, and driving whilst authorisation suspended on 3 July 2019 (the ‘Blake matters’).

Finally, where the informant is First Constable Rhys Smith, the applicant is charged with possessing methylamphetamine and committing an indictable offence while on bail, alleged to have occurred on 9 July 2019 (the ‘Smith matters’).

Bail was revoked…

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 Sleiman

Details

AGLC: Re Sleiman [2020] VSC 469
Case: [2020] VSC 469
Decision Date: 29 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Re Sleiman was an application for bail heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicant, Sleiman, was charged with a serious criminal offence under Schedule 1 of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic). The matter involved a consideration of whether exceptional circumstances existed that would warrant the granting of bail, and whether Sleiman, if released on bail, presented an unacceptable risk to the community. The prosecution opposed the bail application on the basis of the seriousness, violence, and random nature of the current charges.

The court had to determine whether the exceptional circumstances, as defined by the Bail Act, were satisfied in this case. Sleiman's legal team argued that, while the charges were indeed serious, there were mitigating factors that could reduce the risk to an acceptable level. The prosecution contended that the nature of the charges and the potential harm to the community were such that bail should not be granted. The court carefully weighed the evidence and submissions from both parties, ultimately finding that the exceptional circumstances were indeed established and that the risk could be sufficiently mitigated through the imposition of appropriate bail conditions.

Following this determination, the court granted interim bail to Sleiman, subject to a range of conditions designed to manage the risk he posed to the community. These conditions included residence restrictions, electronic monitoring, and regular reporting to bail supervisors. The court's decision was grounded in the specific provisions of the Bail Act, particularly sections 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4A, 4D, and 4E, which were all considered in the context of the unique circumstances of this case. The final orders reflected the court's balancing of the applicant's right to liberty with the need to protect the community from potential harm.

Orders