Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Awad [2015] NSWSC 2106 Hearing dates: 3 February 2015 Date of orders: 03 February 2015 Decision date: 03 February 2015 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Davies J Decision: Conditional bail granted Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - bail – applicant charged with supply prohibited drug and deal with the proceeds of crime – applicant on bail and suspended prison sentence at time of offences – applicant with drug problem - criminal record includes offences of drive whist disqualified – present custody is applicant's first time in custody – Crown neither supports nor oppose bail – drug supply of a low order - strong support from parents and employer – significant security offered – conditional bail granted Category: Principal judgment Parties: Crown George Awad (Applicant) Representation: Counsel: M Gibson (Crown) M Zaki (Applicant) Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid NSW (Applicant) File Number(s): 2014/370089 Judgment 1. The Applicant was charged with driving while disqualified on 5 June 2014. He was given bail for that offence. Notwithstanding he is alleged on 15 November 2014 to have supplied a prohibited drug, possess a prohibited drug and dealt with the proceeds of crime being $1670. The drug concerned is cocaine and that supply is an indictable quantity thereof. He was placed on a suspended prison sentence from 1 March 2013 until 28 February 2015 so that at the time of the present offences charged he was on conditional liberty. 2. In addition to the offence of drive whilst disqualified he has been charged with, he has twice been convicted of that offence in the past. It is an offence which suggests that there will be no compliance with court orders including bail conditions. Additionally he has breached bail on two occasions. This is a show cause offence because he was on bail at the time the supply offence was charged. That at least places an onus on the Applicant to justify why he should be granted bail. 3. The Crown in the present case does not have a view either for or against bail in the matter. The proposal is that he should go to live with his parents in Chester Hill. They have written a long letter to the Court demonstrating their support for him and offering to deposit a sum of $50,000 as surety for his bail. 4. I have also a letter from his former employer where he worked as a labourer, who indicates that if his bail application is successful he is happy to re-employ him. Finally there is a letter from his parish priest who speaks well of him and says that he has a wealth of support from his family and the church community. 5. The Applicant does not have a lengthy criminal record and thus far it seems he has avoided custody in fact although he has been given more than one suspended sentence for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm as well as a subsequent offence of driving while disqualified. It would appear therefore that this is his first time in custody, where he has been since 15 November 2014. 6. Whilst not seeking to minimise the seriousness of the drug supply offences, the offence charged is a relatively low order supply offence, as is the dealing with the proceeds of crime. Whilst it is a matter of concern that he has two convictions for driving while disqualified, that he has been again charged with that offence, that the present offences were committed at a time he was on bail and that he has breached bail on two previous occasions, I think that those matters are outweighed by the relative seriousness of the offences; that is the offences charged are at a relatively low level of seriousness. 7. Furthermore, I consider that the support that is being offered to him by a former employer and his parents, who recognise that he has a drug problem which needs addressing will deal adequately with the bail concerns that I have. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 09 September 2016