Hamze v R [2015] NSWCCA 104

Hamze v R [2015] NSWCCA 104

Although the Crown case was not strong, it appeared viable. The seriousness of the alleged offences, the prospect of a significant custodial sentence if convicted, the applicant's poor history of compliance with bail, previous failures to appear, and past offending while on bail meant that, despite the time already spent in custody and the forthcoming trial listing, the applicant had not shown on the balance of probabilities that his continued detention was not justified.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Bail Release Application / Court of Criminal Appeal Application Under S 49 of the Bail Act 2013 (nsw), Following Refusal by Button J on 26 February 2015
Outcome
Bail release application refused
Legal Topics
['show Cause Offences' 'unacceptable Risk' 'serious Indictable Offences Involving Firearm' 'delay Before Trial' 'strength of Prosecution Case' 'criminal History and Offending on Bail']
['criminal Law' 'bail'] ['show Cause Offences' 'unacceptable Risk' 'serious Indictable Offences Involving Firearm' 'delay Before Trial' 'strength of Prosecution Case' 'criminal History and Offending on Bail']

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 Release Application / Court of Criminal Appeal Application Under S 49 of the Bail Act 2013 (nsw), Following Refusal by Button J on 26 February 2015

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant showed cause under s 16A of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) why his detention was not justified.' 'Whether, if cause were shown, there would be an unacceptable risk under s 19 of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) of failing to appear, committing a serious offence, endangering safety, or interfering with witnesses or evidence.' "The relevance of delay to trial, time already spent in custody, the strength of the prosecution case, the applicant's criminal history, failures to appear, and alleged offending while on bail."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Crown case was not strong, it appeared viable. The seriousness of the alleged offences, the prospect of a significant custodial sentence if convicted, the applicant's poor history of compliance with bail, previous failures to appear, and past offending while on bail meant that, despite the time already spent in custody and the forthcoming trial listing, the applicant had not shown on the balance of probabilities that his continued detention was not justified.

Court Disposition

Bail release application refused

Orders

  • ['Bail release application refused.']