Elomar, Ibrahim v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth); Elomar, Mamdouh v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

MACFARLAN JA: I agree with R A Hulme J.

R A HULME J: Ibrahim Elomar and Mamdouh Elomar ("the applicants") have been charged with an offence contrary to ss 70.2 and 11.5(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) of conspiracy to cause a benefit to be paid to a foreign public official. In short, it is alleged that they, and others, conspired to cause a substantial bribe to be paid to an unknown third party with the intention of influencing a public official (or public officials) in Iraq in order to secure construction contracts.

They were served with court attendance notices on 19 February 2015 and first appeared before the Downing Centre Local Court on 25 March 2015. Bail was granted by the Local Court on certain conditions, including that they surrender their passports and any other travel documents and not apply for any new passport or travel document. Another condition requires the provision of security in the sum of $10,000.

The applicants seek a variation of their bail conditions so as to permit them to travel overseas to certain nominated countries.

The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions ("the DPP") concedes that the applicants have established and legitimate business interests in Australia and overseas. Ibrahim Elomar does not have any criminal history. Mamdouh Elomar has a criminal history but it is not of a nature that militates against him being on bail.

The DPP concedes that a relaxation of the restriction of overseas travel is appropriate in all the circumstances, bearing in mind the other conditions of bail, including an agreed variation of the security requirement to increase the sum in the case of each of the applicants to $2 million.

Having reviewed all of the material that has been placed before the Court I am of the view that the Crown's concession is reasonable and should be accepted.

There is some discrepancy between what the parties understand about some of the existing bail conditions and what is reflected in the computerised records of the Court (JusticeLink). For abundant caution, I propose that the bail be varied by deleting all present conditions and replacing them with the following:

GARLING J: I agree with R A Hulme J.

THE COURT: Subsequent to the making of the above orders it became apparent that each of the applicants were not in a position to comply with the requirement in Condition 6. A written request for an amendment of that condition was received together with a letter from the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions indicating his consent.

The Court is of the view that the requested amendment should be made. Accordingly, on 21 August 2015 the members of the Court made an order that Condition 6 in the case of each of the applicants be varied so that it is in the following terms: