information, crime, Jamie Kinsela, Jamie Graham
A businessman who police allege was concerned in a brazen daylight abduction try exterior a Canberra cafe has been refused bail once more, having failed a number of instances earlier than. Jamie Stewart Graham, who’s also called Jamie Kinsela, fronted the ACT Supreme Court docket on Wednesday. He beforehand pleaded not responsible to 4 costs: aggravated theft, deliberately inflicting grievous bodily hurt, theft, and trying to forcibly confine somebody. His barrister Ken Archer on Wednesday argued the 49-year-old needs to be granted bail due to a change in circumstances in his case. Mr Archer stated police had primarily “given up” their makes an attempt to get a proper assertion from Mr Graham’s alleged sufferer, who informed officers in a pocket book assertion that Mr Graham was considered one of two individuals who assaulted him final September. The alleged sufferer informed police Mr Graham and one other individual noticed him at an oval earlier than they adopted him to Latham retailers and inside a restaurant. The alleged sufferer stated Mr Graham and the opposite individual assaulted him on the bottom, earlier than they dragged him out of the cafe and tried to tie him up and put him into the tray of a ute. Mr Archer on Wednesday stated there was no query the assault had occurred, however the subject was whether or not Mr Graham was one of many offenders. He stated prosecutors had, at previous bail functions, positioned significance on the very fact the alleged sufferer was but to provide police a proper, slightly than a pocket book, assertion. He stated they implied Mr Graham should not be granted bail due to the chance he would intervene with the sufferer earlier than he may give a proper assertion. READ MORE: Businessman refused bail after particulars of alleged abduction try come to gentle Mr Archer advised the case was made weaker by the alleged sufferer’s refusal to provide a proper assertion, and stated prosecutors’ case had modified given they have been not planning to depend on a proper assertion. The barrister stated that amounted to a “change in circumstances”. However Affiliate Justice Verity McWilliam disagreed. She stated police had continued to make some makes an attempt to elicit a proper assertion from the alleged sufferer, and regardless, the case did not activate him making one. The choose stated the alleged sufferer already recognized Mr Graham as his attacker when he gave police his pocket book assertion, and there was CCTV of the September incident at Latham. Mr Graham is because of go to trial for the matter in the midst of this yr.
/photographs/rework/v1/crop/frm/5W4iRw6LNH53uM23K5syYZ/e62f144c-fe1e-4f83-9c56-e6179c353f84.jpg/r0_21_527_319_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg
A businessman who police allege was concerned in a brazen daylight abduction try exterior a Canberra cafe has been refused bail once more, having failed a number of instances earlier than.
Jamie Stewart Graham, who’s also called Jamie Kinsela, fronted the ACT Supreme Court docket on Wednesday.
He beforehand pleaded not responsible to 4 costs: aggravated theft, deliberately inflicting grievous bodily hurt, theft, and trying to forcibly confine somebody.
His barrister Ken Archer on Wednesday argued the 49-year-old needs to be granted bail due to a change in circumstances in his case.
Mr Archer stated police had primarily “given up” their makes an attempt to get a proper assertion from Mr Graham’s alleged sufferer, who informed officers in a pocket book assertion that Mr Graham was considered one of two individuals who assaulted him final September.
The alleged sufferer informed police Mr Graham and one other individual noticed him at an oval earlier than they adopted him to Latham retailers and inside a restaurant.
The alleged sufferer stated Mr Graham and the opposite individual assaulted him on the bottom, earlier than they dragged him out of the cafe and tried to tie him up and put him into the tray of a ute.
Mr Archer on Wednesday stated there was no query the assault had occurred, however the subject was whether or not Mr Graham was one of many offenders.
He stated prosecutors had, at previous bail functions, positioned significance on the very fact the alleged sufferer was but to provide police a proper, slightly than a pocket book, assertion.
He stated they implied Mr Graham should not be granted bail due to the chance he would intervene with the sufferer earlier than he may give a proper assertion.
Mr Archer advised the case was made weaker by the alleged sufferer’s refusal to provide a proper assertion, and stated prosecutors’ case had modified given they have been not planning to depend on a proper assertion.
The barrister stated that amounted to a “change in circumstances”.
However Affiliate Justice Verity McWilliam disagreed.
She stated police had continued to make some makes an attempt to elicit a proper assertion from the alleged sufferer, and regardless, the case did not activate him making one.
The choose stated the alleged sufferer already recognized Mr Graham as his attacker when he gave police his pocket book assertion, and there was CCTV of the September incident at Latham.
Mr Graham is because of go to trial for the matter in the midst of this yr.