Re Warda

Case [2021] VSC 323 7 June 2021

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2021 105

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

-and-

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by ADDAI WARDA

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	24 May, 2 June 2021
DATE OF RULING:	7 June 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Warda
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 323

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Application for bail — Charges of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime and dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime — Likely delay of three years between charge and trial — Availability of residential rehabilitation — Significant surety — Exceptional circumstances established — Unacceptable risk not demonstrated — Bail granted with conditions — Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E — Cases cited: Re Yousuf [2021] VSC 272; Re Tofaris [2021] VSC 249; Re Shea [2021] VSC 207; Re Jiang [2021] VSC 148; Re Boo [2020] VSC 882; Re Ning [2020] VSC 609; Re Ilpola [2020] VSC 578; Re Taylor [2020] VSC 146; Re McCann [2020] VSC 138; Re Broes [2020] VSC 128.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr John Dickinson QC	Melasecca, Kelly & Zayler
For the Respondent	Mr Peter Pickering	The Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

This is an application for bail by Addai Warda (‘the applicant’). He was remanded in custody on 11 November 2020 on charges of trafficking a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence (methylamphetamine);[1] knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime;[2] and dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime.[3] The informant is Detective Senior Constable Bianca Aitken of Victoria Police.
[1]Contrary to s 71 of the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic).
[2]Contrary to s 194(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
[3]Contrary to s 195 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

The applicant was refused bail on 23 April 2021 at the Magistrates’ Court in Melbourne on the basis that he had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances that would justify a grant of bail. The Magistrate made no finding as to unacceptable risk. The applicant now applies for bail in this court.

The matter is next listed on 17 September 2021 at the Magistrates’ Court in Melbourne for a contested committal.

Apart from these charges, the applicant has no other outstanding matters. He is, however, subject to an ongoing Australian Federal Police (‘AFP’) investigation as outlined in ‘the respondent’s contentions’ section below.

The alleged offending

The investigation leading to the applicant’s arrest began in August 2020, when police attended the residential premises of co-accused, Takai Uluakiahoia, in Kilsyth for an unrelated family violence matter. In an unlocked garage, police identified a clandestine laboratory for the manufacture of methylamphetamine. As a result, a covert police operation was commenced.

On 11 November 2020,…

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 Warda

Details

AGLC: Re Warda [2021] VSC 323
Case: [2021] VSC 323
Decision Date: 7 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Warda, was before the County Court of Victoria to apply for bail in relation to serious drug trafficking charges. The charges included trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime, and dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime. The anticipated delay of approximately three years before the trial was a significant factor in the bail application. The court needed to assess whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify granting bail, considering the nature and seriousness of the offences, the length of the likely delay, and the risk of interference with the administration of justice or the community.

The primary legal issues for the court were whether exceptional circumstances justified granting bail, given the severity of the charges and the extended delay. The court examined the risk of Warda interfering with the administration of justice or the community, the availability of residential rehabilitation, and the adequacy of the surety provided. The court also considered the risk of flight and the likelihood of Warda appearing for trial if released on bail.

The court found that exceptional circumstances did exist. Although the charges were serious, the court was satisfied that the risk of Warda interfering with the administration of justice or the community was not unacceptably high. The availability of residential rehabilitation, combined with the significant surety provided, further supported the granting of bail. The court determined that the risk of flight was minimal, and Warda was likely to appear for trial if released on bail. The court granted bail with conditions, including strict bail conditions and regular reporting requirements.

The court made orders granting bail to Warda with specific conditions, including that Warda reside at a specified address, report to a bail justice as required, and comply with other specified conditions aimed at ensuring that Warda does not interfere with the administration of justice or the community. The orders also included provisions for electronic monitoring and restrictions on Warda’s movements and communications.

Orders