R v Khayat (No 11) [2019] NSWSC 1320

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Khayat (No 11) [2019] NSWSC 1320 Hearing dates: 6 June 2019 Decision date: 06 June 2019 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: Adamson J Decision: Bail refused Catchwords: CRIME – bail – release application – terrorism charge – applicant failed to show exceptional circumstances – application refused Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013 (NSW), ss 17, 22, 22A Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 15AA Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), ss 11.5, 101.6 Cases Cited: McGlone v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2019] NSWCCA 99 R v Naizmand [2016] NSWSC 836 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Regina Mahmoud Khayat (Accused) Representation: Counsel: L Crowley QC/Y Shariff (Crown) B Walmsley QC (Accused)

Solicitors: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Birchgrove Legal (Accused) File Number(s): 2017/236835

Judgment: EX TEMPORE

Introduction 1. Mahmoud Khayat, the applicant for release, has been in custody since his arrest on 29 July 2017. The Crown opposes the application. The applicant stands charged with an offence of conspiring to do acts in preparation for, or planning, a terrorist act contrary to ss 101.6(1) and 11.5(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), which carries a maximum penalty of life. It was accepted that the applicant has been charged with a terrorism offence within the meaning of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). 2. The applicant was jointly tried with his brother Khaled Khayat (the first trial). The first trial commenced on 18 March 2019. On 1 May 2019 the jury returned a verdict of guilty in respect of Khaled Khayat. I discharged the jury on 3 May 2019 after having satisfied myself that the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict in respect of the applicant. 3. The re-trial of the applicant is listed to commence on 5 August 2019. It appears to be common ground that there will be some differences between the evidence called in the first trial and that called in the second, some of which will inevitably relate to the fact that the second trial has one accused, the applicant, whereas the first trial had two accused. There may be other differences.