R v Ftelianos [2017] NSWCCA 211

R v Ftelianos [2017] NSWCCA 211

The respondent did not show cause why his detention was not justified. Although the Crown case depended largely on two witnesses whose reliability would be challenged and whose evidence may attract an unreliability warning, the Court was not prepared to characterise the Crown case as weak because, if their evidence were accepted, conviction and a lengthy custodial sentence would be inevitable. The delay in charging was relevant but not deserving of significant weight. In any event, the respondent's criminal history created significant risks of further violent offending and interference with witnesses which could not be adequately addressed by conditions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Bail Detention Application / Crown Application Pursuant to S. 50 of the Bail Act 2013 (nsw), Determined Afresh After the Respondent Had Been Released on Bail
Outcome
The Crown's detention application was granted.
Legal Topics
['crown Detention Application' 'show Cause' 'unacceptable Risk' 'firearm Offence' 'witness Interference' 'further Offending']
['criminal Law' 'bail'] ['crown Detention Application' 'show Cause' 'unacceptable Risk' 'firearm Offence' 'witness Interference' 'further Offending']

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

Criminal Bail Detention Application / Crown Application Pursuant to S. 50 of the Bail Act 2013 (nsw), Determined Afresh After the Respondent Had Been Released on Bail

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent showed cause under s. 16A of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) why his detention was not justified' 'Whether any unacceptable risks could be addressed by the imposition of bail conditions' 'Whether the alleged weaknesses in the Crown case and delay in charging the respondent justified bail']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent did not show cause why his detention was not justified. Although the Crown case depended largely on two witnesses whose reliability would be challenged and whose evidence may attract an unreliability warning, the Court was not prepared to characterise the Crown case as weak because, if their evidence were accepted, conviction and a lengthy custodial sentence would be inevitable. The delay in charging was relevant but not deserving of significant weight. In any event, the respondent's criminal history created significant risks of further violent offending and interference with witnesses which could not be adequately addressed by conditions.

Court Disposition

The Crown's detention application was granted.

Orders

  • ["The Crown's detention application is granted."]