Citation: R v Awad [2015] NSWSC 2106
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 3 February 2015
Judge(s): Davies J
Background
The applicant faced charges of supplying a prohibited drug (cocaine, at an indictable quantity), possessing a prohibited drug, and dealing with the proceeds of crime ($1,670). These offences were alleged to have occurred on 15 November 2014, at which time the applicant was both on bail for a driving while disqualified charge and serving a suspended prison sentence that ran from March 2013 to February 2015.
The applicant had a modest criminal record that included two prior convictions for driving while disqualified, convictions for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and two prior bail breaches. Despite this history, the period in custody since his arrest on 15 November 2014 represented his first time serving actual custody.
The applicant proposed to live with his parents in Chester Hill if granted bail. His parents offered $50,000 as surety, a former employer indicated willingness to re-employ him, and his parish priest provided a character reference attesting to strong family and community support.
Legal Issues
- Whether the applicant could show cause why bail should be granted, given that the supply offence was committed while he was on bail (making this a "show cause" offence)
- Whether the applicant's history of bail breaches and non-compliance with court orders outweighed the factors favouring bail
- Whether the support structures and surety offered were sufficient to address the court's bail concerns
Decision
Because the alleged drug supply occurred while the applicant was on bail, this was classified as a "show cause" offence, placing the onus on the applicant to justify why bail should be granted. The Crown took a neutral position, neither supporting nor opposing the application.
Davies J acknowledged the factors weighing against bail: two prior convictions for driving while disqualified (characterised as indicative of non-compliance with court orders), two prior bail breaches, the commission of the current offences while on conditional liberty, and the fact that the applicant was on a suspended sentence at the relevant time.
However, his Honour found those concerns were outweighed by the relatively low seriousness of the drug supply charge and the proceeds of crime amount involved. The court treated the gravity of the offending as a significant counterbalancing factor in the show cause analysis.
The strong support from the applicant's parents, including the $50,000 surety, together with the prospect of re-employment and acknowledgment that the applicant had a drug problem requiring treatment, satisfied Davies J that the bail concerns could be adequately addressed through conditions. Conditional bail was granted.
Orders Made
No orders were made in this decision.
Key Takeaways
- In a "show cause" bail application, the burden falls on the applicant to demonstrate why bail should be granted, but the court may still grant bail where the relative seriousness of the offending is low and meaningful support structures exist.
- Repeated convictions for driving while disqualified were treated by the Supreme Court as relevant indicators of a propensity for non-compliance with court orders, bearing on the assessment of bail risk.
- Substantial financial surety and concrete offers of accommodation and employment, supported by family and community references, can carry significant weight in displacing bail concerns even where the applicant has a history of bail breaches.
- The Crown's neutral stance on a bail application does not resolve the matter in the applicant's favour; the court independently assessed all relevant factors.
- Granting bail on a show cause offence does not require an unblemished record; the court balanced the totality of the applicant's circumstances against the nature and level of the alleged offending.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
No specific legislation or cases were cited in the judgment text or metadata. The judgment references the concept of "show cause" bail, consistent with the framework applicable under the Bail Act 2013 (NSW), though that Act was not expressly named.