R v Popovic [2017] NSWSC 145

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Popovic [2017] NSWSC 145 Hearing dates: 23 February 2017 Date of orders: 28 February 2017 Decision date: 28 February 2017 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Harrison J Decision: Mr Popovic's release application is refused. Catchwords: BAIL – release application – strength of the Crown case – whether unacceptable delay – assessment of anterior delay – failure to show cause why continued detention is not justified – release application refused Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013 Cases Cited: DPP v Mawad [2015] NSWCCA 227 Popovic v R [2016] NSWCCA 202 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Crown (Applicant) Zlatan Popovic (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: P Barrett (Respondent)

Solicitors: Toomey Lawyers (Applicant) Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) File Number(s): 2016/316693 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment 1. HIS HONOUR: Zlatan Popovic applies for bail. He has been in custody since 12 September 2012 when he was arrested and charged with the murder of Dragan Sekuljica on 8 September 2007. Mr Popovic was tried before R S Hulme AJ and a jury and convicted of murder on 29 May 2014. He was sentenced by his Honour to a term of imprisonment of 34 years. He remained in custody thereafter serving that sentence until 21 September 2016 when his conviction was quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal and a new trial was ordered: Popovic v R [2016] NSWCCA 202. He has therefore remained in custody since then as a remand prisoner until the present time. His re-trial is scheduled to commence on 31 July 2017. 2. The Crown opposes bail. Mr Popovic is required to show cause why his continued detention is not justified. That is because murder is a show cause offence as defined in s 16B of the Bail Act 2013. The Crown maintains that even if Mr Popovic were able to show cause, his release application should be refused because he continues to pose an unacceptable risk in accordance with s 19 of the Act and because there are no conditions that could be imposed upon his release on bail that could eliminate or satisfactorily mitigate that risk. 3. Mr Popovic made a previous application for bail. The Crown concedes that in terms of s 74(3)(c) of the Act, circumstances relevant to the grant of bail have changed since the previous application was made and that Mr Popovic has grounds for a further release application in the terms of that section. In my opinion, that concession is properly made.