R v Russell [2018] NSWSC 1496

R v Russell [2018] NSWSC 1496

The combination of the respondent's attendance at court despite having almost a month's notice that he was at risk of being returned to custody, his stability and family support, strict bail conditions, and the substantial $1 million security showed cause why detention was not justified. The bail order sufficiently addressed the risk of flight and any risk of interference with witnesses, particularly because the Crown case relied largely on police evidence and the limited civilian evidence was not likely to be susceptible to interference or intimidation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Bail Detention Application / Supreme Court Application by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions After the Respondent Was Granted Conditional Bail by Magistrate Shurr in the Local Court
Outcome
Detention application refused.
Legal Topics
['detention Application' 'show Cause' 'unacceptable Risk' 'importation of Commercial Quantities of Methylamphetamine' 'dealing With Proceeds of Crime' 'supply of Commercial Quantity of Cocaine' 'bail Conditions and Security']
['criminal Law' 'bail'] ['detention Application' 'show Cause' 'unacceptable Risk' 'importation of Commercial Quantities of Methylamphetamine' 'dealing With Proceeds of Crime' 'supply of Commercial Quantity of Cocaine' 'bail Conditions and Security']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Bail Detention Application / Supreme Court Application by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions After the Respondent Was Granted Conditional Bail by Magistrate Shurr in the Local Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent had shown cause why his detention was not justified in respect of charges requiring show cause under the Bail Act 2013 (NSW).' 'Whether there were unacceptable risks, including risk of failure to appear and risk of interference with witnesses, that could not be addressed by the existing bail order.']

Ratio Decidendi

The combination of the respondent's attendance at court despite having almost a month's notice that he was at risk of being returned to custody, his stability and family support, strict bail conditions, and the substantial $1 million security showed cause why detention was not justified. The bail order sufficiently addressed the risk of flight and any risk of interference with witnesses, particularly because the Crown case relied largely on police evidence and the limited civilian evidence was not likely to be susceptible to interference or intimidation.

Court Disposition

Detention application refused.

Orders

  • ['The application was refused.' 'The bail order made by Magistrate Shurr should stand.']