R v Alexandridis [2014] NSWSC 662

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Alexandridis [2014] NSWSC 662 Hearing dates: 22-23 May 2014 Decision date: 23 May 2014 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: Hamill J Decision: Bail refused Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - new Bail Act - unacceptable risk - mitigation of unacceptable risks - onus of proof Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 322(1) Bail Act 2013 (NSW) Bail Act 1978 (NSW) Cases Cited: R v David Peter Cain (No. 1) (2001) 121 A Crim R 365 Williams v DPP [2001] 1QR 99 Dale v DPP [2009] VSCA 212 Woods v DPP [2014] VSC 1 Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) [2004] 223 CLR 575 M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69 Beldon v R [2012] NSWCCA 194 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Crown Applicant: Alexandridis Representation: Counsel: C Shaw (Crown) G James QC (Applicant) Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions Matouk Joyner Lawyers (Applicant) File Number(s): 2014/150467 Publication restriction: Nil

ex tempore Judgment (REVISED)

Application for Bail

VIDEO LINK COMMENCED 1HIS HONOUR: Mr Mario Alexandridis applies for bail and seeks a release order in relation to the charge of threatening a person with intent to influence as a witness. That is an offence under s 322(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). I am told and I accept that it is a strictly indictable offence. 2Mr Alexandridis is represented by Mr James, of Queens Counsel and the Crown by Mr Shaw. The Crown opposes bail. 3The case falls to be determined under the provisions of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) ("the Act") which came into operation this week. The Act made significant changes to the law in relation to bail but it leaves the fundamental principles of our criminal justice system in place. The major change effected by the Act is that it abolishes the previous system of presumptions, which applied under the Bail Act 1978 (NSW) and the scores of amendments that have been made to that Act over the years. 4A bail authority, including a court, is no longer required to consider the application by reference to whether there is a presumption in favour of bail, a presumption against bail, or no presumption either way. Rather, the Act says that before making a bail decision a bail authority "must" consider whether there are "unacceptable risks": see s 17(1). 5The relevant risks are set out in s 17(2) and they are whether the accused person, if released on bail, will fail to appear, commit a serious offence, endanger the safety of victims and individuals of the community or interfere with witnesses or evidence. 6Subsection (3) sets out an exhaustive list of the "only" matters to be taken into account in determining whether there is an unacceptable risk. Those matters are: