R (Cth) v Mohr (No. 6) [2020] NSWSC 1942

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R (Cth) v Mohr (No. 6) [2020] NSWSC 1942 Hearing dates: 6 March 2020 Date of orders: 6 March 2020 Decision date: 06 March 2020 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Wilson J Decision: Bail refused Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug – verdict of guilty of conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug – matter not ready to proceed to sentence – matter adjourned for sentence – whether the applicant ought be permitted to remain on bail – maximum penalty of life imprisonment – division 1A Bail Act – show cause offence – previous compliance with bail conditions as feature to show cause as to why accused should not be detained – s16A Bail Act Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013 (NSW) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Regina (Crown) Darren Mohr (Accused) Representation: Counsel: M England/Mr C McGorey (Crown) G Brady SC (Accused)

Solicitors: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown) (Cth) McGirr Lawyers (Accused) File Number(s): 2017/376756 Publication restriction: Judgment previously restricted pending finalisation of all co-accused trials and related appeals.

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT (REVISED) 1. HER HONOUR: A short time ago the jury empanelled to hear this trial returned a verdict of guilty to the single charge on indictment against Darren Mohr, a charge of conspiring with others to import a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, the drug being cocaine. 2. The matter is not ready to proceed to sentence and has now been adjourned for sentence to 29 May of this year. The question arises as to bail, and whether the applicant ought be permitted to remain on bail, as he has been since early 2017. 3. The Crown submits that bail should now be revoked, the offender's status having changed from an individual with the benefit of the presumption of innocence to an individual who has been found guilty, and now convicted, of a serious offence, one which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and one which may result in a fulltime custodial sentence. 4. The Crown points out that the offence is one to which Division 1A of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) applies and, accordingly, it is a matter for the offender to show cause as to why he should not be detained. 5. Mr Brady of Senior Counsel reminds the Court that Mr Mohr has been subject to bail now for a very lengthy period and there has no suggestion that he has not complied with what have been stringent conditions. He has appeared when required before the Courts and has complied with all other conditions, including a condition of daily reporting to the authorities. That, as I understand it, together with the offender's former relatively unblemished character are relied upon as features which go to show cause as to why the applicant should not be detained. 6. The Court is entitled to have regard to a wide range of features when considering whether or not s16A of the Act has been met and an accused person or, as in this case, a convicted person, has shown cause as to why his detention is not justified. I give some weight to the fact that the offender has complied with bail conditions over a lengthy period; that certainly evidences a capacity to comply with bail conditions, and is a basis for at least some confidence that the offender would appear for sentence when called. I give some weight to his former generally good character, setting aside some minor convictions which are not relevant for present purposes. However, I am not persuaded that those features, even taken in combination, are sufficient in this instance to show cause why Mr Mohr's detention is not justified. 7. As the Crown has pointed out, s16A applies because of the nature of the penalty that flows upon conviction, a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Whilst an accused person with the presumption of innocence in his or her favour who complies with bail is entitled to have that feature given considerable weight, nevertheless, I think it is a very different proposition to be a convicted person facing sentence for an offence which carries such a significant maximum penalty upon conviction. 8. There is some evidence before the Court which appears to be credible evidence, to the effect that Mr Mohr has contacts with a fairly sophisticated syndicate based internationally, that syndicate necessarily having access to funds in the sorts of amounts capable of funding a conspiracy of this nature, and who may also have access to false documentation. 9. Although those are matters which go towards risk and the considerations under Division 2 of the Bail Act, they are features against which, in my view, the show cause provision must be taken as the context. 10. Here, I am not satisfied that cause has been shown and on that basis bail must be refused. That means that Mr Mohr must be taken into custody.