R v Soltani

The applicant seeks bail having been in custody since his arrest on 24 February 2024 charged with offences under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) of take/detain in company with intent to obtain advantage, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and participate in a criminal group. The latter charge is no longer pursued, but the two that are attract maximum penalties of 14 years and 5 years respectively.

The applicant is next due before the Downing Centre District Court for a trial readiness hearing on 10 October in respect of those charges, the trial for which is listed for hearing on 25 May 2026.

There is no issue that this is not a case where the Bail Act imposes an obligation to show cause why his arrest is not justified: s 16A. Still the Crown opposed the grant of bail in circumstances where there was no issue that the bail concerns and risks it had identified, of non-appearance, commission of a serious offence, of danger to the victim, individuals or the community and of interference with witnesses or evidence, all arise to be considered on the application: ss 17 and 19.

The application has to be decided on the balance of probabilities, taking into account evidence or information considered to be credible or trustworthy in the circumstances: s 32. It is not to be undertaken according to the laws governing the admission of evidence: s 31.

On what is in evidence I am satisfied that the applicant does pose the identified bail concerns and risks, given all that it reveals about the nature and seriousness of the alleged offending, the applicant’s involvement in which is unarguably established by CCTV footage which was played and the circumstances of his arrest at the scene where the seriously injured complainant was found by police.

The applicant’s case was that the bail concerns he posed could sufficiently be addressed by proposed conditions of bail, he denying that he was involved in taking and detaining the complainant, injuring him or being a member of the Hells Angels or President of its Chinatown chapter.

The applicant relied on his personal circumstances, which include that he is a builder who before his arrest shared custody of his two children who he needs to continue to care for and support; that before his arrest he was being treated for anxiety and depression for which is unable to obtain appropriate treatment in custody; that his father died in February 2025 as the result of a motor vehicle accident in which his partner was seriously injured; that she also suffers other considerable ill health issues and also requires his care and assistance; the delay until trial; and his need to be at liberty to prepare his defence.

The proposed conditions include daily reporting to police, a curfew and $10,000 surety, as well as non-contact conditions. A friend also offered surety of $20,000.

The application is also supported by a letter from the psychiatrist Dr Furst, who explained the history he had been given, which included the applicant’s ongoing history of drug abuse, mental health issues and his record. He having been sentenced in 2016 for an offence of conspiring to import a commercial quantity of border-controlled precursors for which he was sentenced to 7 and a half years in with a non-parole period of 4 years and 3 months. Dr Furst diagnosed him to be suffering multiple acquired head injuries, anxiety disorder and substance use disorder. He considered that the applicant’s recovery from anxiety, grief and depression and physical symptoms of pain would be assisted by increased clinical support and treatment in the community.

In evidence were other statements from friends of the applicant. One offered him building work. Another provided character evidence, as did Dr Vatandoust, who has known the applicant since 1987. He also explained the applicant’s personal responsibilities.

At common law a person seeking bail is entitled to the presumption of innocence and has a general right to be at liberty, matters which still remain relevant to the resolution of what is in issue on this application. It is s 18 which specifies the matters which must be considered on an assessment of bail concerns. Section 19 requires the application to be dismissed if the Court is not satisfied that the applicant does not pose the unacceptable risks identified.

Relevant to this is the applicant’s record, which dates back to 1997 and includes several past failures to appear when the applicant was considerably younger and known by the surname Ebrahimi. He has no record of offending while on bail or parole, but has been convicted of drug possession and supply offences, weapon offences, custody of offensive implements, repeated driving offences, goods in custody, as well as an offence committed in custody.

The applicant contended that an assessment that the Crown case is strong is not necessarily determinative of whether continued detention is justified: JM v R [2015] NSWSC 978 at [41]. He also contended that the Crown case was not strong and that he had a real chance of acquittal.

The applicant also submitted that this and his family and community ties established that he was not a flight risk, providing him with a strong motivation not to flee and that the conditions of bail proposed addressed the other bail concerns identified.

This has to be considered in the context of what the evidence reveals about the strength of the Crown case. I consider that does not establish, as the applicant submitted, that he has real prospects of acquittal. That submission was advanced on the basis of CCTV footage which did not show that the complainant had been seriously injured in the early stages of the alleged detention and that it was not consistent with the complainant having been detained, given what it shows the complainant and others doing.

The result being that the claimed detention and the timing of the complainant’s injuries would be in issue at trial. It being possible that his injuries were inflicted before the day of the applicant’s arrest, by another offender. That being supported by a hammer, gloves, large knife, duct tape and wire cutter which the complainant said the applicant had used when he was injured, not having been found by police when the complainant was rescued.

It follows that the case will turn at trial in part on the complainant’s credibility, given the account he gave of how the applicant had assaulted him, although various aspects of his account are supported by the CCTV footage.

The alleged offending involved the detention of the complainant and repeated attempts over some days to obtain financial advantage from him, while the offenders repeatedly threatened and injured him. The alleged offenders, including the applicant, being members of the Hells Angels Outlaw Motorcycle gang. The complainant was allegedly detained by some of the offenders after he was told the big boss, the applicant, wanted to see him. After which he was taken from place to place over some four days, during which he was repeatedly assaulted and threatened, including by the applicant.

The applicant’s involvement is supported by the CCTV footage which captured him attending and leaving places where the applicant said he was kept, as well as other offenders coming and going with the complainant.

On the fourth day the offending came to police attention while some alleged offenders were driving the complainant around. They took him to a house at Parramatta, where the applicant later came and went and, it is alleged, further assaulted and threatened the complainant. It is accepted that the CCTV footage shows that the complainant had suffered some injury before he entered that house and was considerably more injured when rescued by police later that day.

It is alleged that in the evening of that day the applicant threatened the complainant with a knife and repeatedly struck him with a hammer and plank of wood. That he was not carrying such implements when he entered the house is argued to support the challenge to the complainant’s account.

But it was at about 9.33pm that police raided the house where the severely injured victim was found and taken to hospital for treatment which he required. Two other offenders surrendered, but the applicant fled by climbing out of a bedroom window. He was arrested in the backyard and treated for injuries which he suffered during his attempted escape.

Despite the issue at trial about the credibility of the complainant’s evidence, it must be accepted that the Crown case is a strong one. That flows from the circumstances of the applicant’s arrest at the house and the state the CCTV footage shows the complainant was in when he entered that house, compared to the very serious injuries he suffered while inside with the alleged offenders, including the applicant.

The injuries which the complainant suffered included extensive, serious bilateral fractures to his eye socket, face and nose; eye trauma which required surgery; fractured ribs; and a fractured right leg which extended into the knee joint.

That has to be considered in a context where the applicant not only attended places where the complainant claims he was detained over the four days of the alleged offending, but was also present when the complainant was found by police seriously injured and a number of other alleged offenders were arrested and charged.

That the applicant had not earlier alerted police or called for an ambulance, as he clearly had an opportunity to do, given how he came and went from the house where the complainant was found, so that he could receive the urgent medical attention which he unarguably then required, is pertinent. As is that when police arrived the applicant attempted to flee.

It must be accepted that the applicant’s conduct that day was consistent with a consciousness of guilt. It must also be accepted that there is a real prospect that the applicant will be convicted at trial and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for his offending, notwithstanding the challenge to the complaint’s credibility.

That has to be considered in a context where since the complainant was hospitalised, he has had to be moved because of safety concerns. That the complainant’s safety remains at risk must be accepted. The submission in reply, that the suggestion that the applicant poses a risk to the complainant if released “is unfounded, particularly given if he was so motivated and if he was connected as suggested, this could have been attempted remotely”, as could contact with the victim, must be considered in that context.

As well as in the context of the issue about whether there is a proper basis for the Crown’s contention that the applicant and other of the alleged offenders are members of the Hells Angels. The applicant denies such membership.

It is settled that the opinion of a police officer that bail should be refused is a matter that is “unable to be considered” on an application such as this: Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Tony Mawad [2015] NSWCCA 227 at [35]. But police opinions may be considered at least to be “trustworthy”, in that there is no reason to doubt the bona fides of its author: at [39].

In the applicant’s case it is not only police opinions about his membership of the Hells Angels which arise to be considered. The facts tendered when the applicant was sentenced for his drug supply offence referred to the applicant’s association with the Hells Angels. Custodial records reflect the approach which is now being taken to the applicant in custody, given his association with members of various motorcycle gangs. In evidence is also a document which the applicant wrote earlier this year in custody, where he said that he is not a member of the Hells Angels, but has a few friends who are and that his “affiliation” with them is due to various of his friendships.

Section 18(1) requires the Court to consider various matters, including an accused person’s background, criminal history, circumstances and community ties, as well as any criminal associations. Whether or not the applicant is a member of the Hells Angels, it must be accepted that he has an admitted association with its members which is being managed in custody. That does not support the conclusion that the applicant would not pose unacceptable risks if released on the proposed conditions of bail, which would leave him unsupervised in the community during the day.

Reliance was also placed on various sentencing statistics to advance the applicant’s case. But of course any sentence imposed on the applicant will depend on the nature and seriousness of the offending established on the evidence led at his trial. What that will be cannot now be accurately predicted. But from what is in evidence it must be accepted that any non-parole period imposed on the applicant if convicted, is likely to be longer than time he will have spent in custody bail refused. It appearing that his alleged offending falls at the more serious end of the spectrum.

The applicant does, it must be accepted, have good reason for wishing to be in the community, preparing for his trial, dealing with his own health and drug issues and supporting the family members who depend on him, even though there is no proposal for the pursuit of any rehabilitation. Still these are important considerations. But despite them and the further delay until his hearing, regrettable although not out of the ordinary that it is, I am not persuaded that the proposed conditions of bail provide a proper foundation for the conclusion that the applicant will not continue to pose the unacceptable risks identified, if released on bail.

That conclusion is precluded by the nature and seriousness of the violent offending which the evidence establishes that the applicant was involved in and for which he is at real risk of conviction and sentence to a lengthy term of imprisonment. That and his criminal record and associations underscore the danger which his release on bail would pose to the complainant and the community, as well as the risk of his involvement in further serious offending which the proposed conditions of bail are incapable of adequately addressing.

In all of those circumstances s 19 requires that the application be refused.