Mokbel v DPP

Supreme Court of Victoria|2002-09-04|Before: KELLAM J

The application in relation to the State charges shall be granted and bail will be fixed in the defendant's undertaking with sureties to a total value of $1 million. Special conditions are that the defendant report to the police station at Coburg. Frequency of attendance shall be twice daily; time of attendance between 8.00 a.m. and 12.00 p.m. and 5.00 p.m. and 9.00 p.m.; to reside at 36 Canberra Street, Brunswick; to notify the informant within 24 hours of any proposed change of address and change of reporting station as directed by the informant; to surrender any passport held and not to apply for any other; not to attend any point of international departure, and not to contact witnesses for the prosecution other than the informant. That is the State matter.

In the Commonwealth matter the application is granted. Bail is fixed in the defendant's own undertaking. There is a surety fixed on bail on the State proceedings. The defendant is to report to Coburg police station twice daily, between 8.00 a.m. and 12.00 p.m. and 5.00 p.m. and 9.00 p.m.; to reside at 36 Canberra Street, Brunswick; to notify the informant within 24 hours of any proposed change of address and change of reporting station as directed by the informant; to surrender any passport held and not to apply for any other; not to attend any point of international departure; not to contact witnesses for the prosecution other than the informant; not to contact co-accused Banda, S. Schmidt, P. Schmidt and Carras, and I suppose the court order should note that sureties are fixed in relation to whatever number the state proceeding is .

I will leave the surety on the State proceedings and put a note on the other order that sureties have been fixed and that, as I see it, it is a joint surety in respect of both prosecutions.

This is a further application for bail by the accused man, Antonius Mokbel. The facts relating to this matter are set out fully in the DPP v Antonius Mokbel [2001] VSC 403, a decision of Cummins, J. dated 1 October 2001, and Mokbel v DPP [2002] VSC 127 and Mokbel v DPP No. 2 [2002] VSC 312 which were decided by me on 26 April and 9 August 2002 respectively. I do not consider it necessary to here repeat what has been said about the history of these proceedings which are set out in those three decisions.

At a glance