SZH v The Queen - [2021] NSWSC 95

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: SZH v R [2021] NSWSC 95
Hearing dates: 15 February 2021
Date of orders: 17 February 2021
Decision date: 17 February 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Garling J
Decision:
Application for Bail refused

Catchwords:
CRIME – Bail – Show Cause – Previous conviction for similar offending – Bail refused

Legislation Cited:
Bail Act 2013
Crimes Act 1900
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010

Cases Cited:
Not Applicable

Texts Cited:
Not Applicable

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: The Crown
SZH (Applicant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms Ghabrial (Applicant)
Mr A Brookman (Crown)
Solicitors:
Criminal Law Group (Applicant)
Director Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2020/361346
Publication restriction: Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders

Judgment

On 3 December 2020, SZH (“the applicant”), was arrested and charged with a series of offences, which are set out in more detail below, and which centre upon the supply of prohibited drugs. She was taken into custody at that time and has remained in custody ever since.
Shortly after entering custody, the applicant made an application pursuant to s 8 of the Bail Act 2013 for release on bail.
The Crown opposed the application. The application was heard on 15 February 2021.

Non-Publication Order

It will be necessary in this judgment to consider the nature and strength of the Crown case against the applicant. This is to be done by reference to summaries of evidentiary material provided by the Crown. Those summaries may not ultimately be admitted in evidence at the applicant’s trial.
In order to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, and in order to ensure a fair trial of the applicant, the Court must make a suppression order pursuant to s 8 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010. In so doing, I take into account that a primary objective of the administration of justice is to safeguard the public interest in open justice. However, in an interlocutory application such as this one, it is also important to take steps to ensure that a fair trial will take place.
Accordingly, the Court has ordered that the name of the applicant and any material tending to identify her be suppressed. Such order is made until the conclusion of the trial of the applicant, or further order of the Court, whichever first occurs. I have assigned the pseudonym SZH to the applicant.

The Applicant

The applicant, SZH, is presently 33 years old. She has a history of past offences. That history commenced in 2009. Since then the applicant has appeared in various local courts on 16 separate occasions. These occasions have largely involved offences relating to possession of prohibited drugs, receiving or having custody of stolen goods and other offences connected with, or arising from, possession or low-level supply of drugs.
On 4 April 2014, the applicant pleaded guilty to two significant indictable drug offences – one was supplying a prohibited drug, heroin, at greater than the indictable quantity. For this…

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 SZH v The Queen

Details

AGLC: SZH v The Queen [2021] NSWSC 95
Case: [2021] NSWSC 95
Decision Date: 17 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, SZH, was charged with possession of a prohibited drug and appeared before the Supreme Court of Victoria for a bail application. SZH had a prior conviction for a similar drug offence, which the prosecution argued was a significant factor in denying bail. The court was required to determine whether the previous conviction and the nature of the current charge warranted the refusal of bail. Specifically, the court needed to consider the seriousness of the current offence, the likelihood of SZH appearing in court if released on bail, and whether there were any other compelling reasons to grant or refuse bail.

The court emphasised the importance of the previous conviction, noting that it demonstrated a pattern of similar offending. The judge highlighted that SZH had been previously convicted for drug-related activities, which suggested a disregard for the law and a potential risk to the community if released. Additionally, the court considered the nature of the current charge, which involved possession of a prohibited substance, and the potential for reoffending if bail were granted. The prosecution argued that releasing SZH on bail could lead to further criminal activity and posed a risk to public safety.

After weighing the evidence and arguments presented, the court concluded that the previous conviction for similar offences and the nature of the current charge warranted the refusal of bail. The judge found that the risk of SZH reoffending was significant, and granting bail could potentially endanger the community. Consequently, the court refused SZH's application for bail, and the respondent was remanded in custody pending the outcome of the trial.

The court made no specific orders beyond the refusal of bail. SZH's application was dismissed, and the respondent was to remain in custody until the trial date. The decision underscored the importance of considering prior convictions when assessing bail applications, particularly in cases involving similar offending patterns.

Orders