Background
M Soltani was arrested on 24 February 2024 and charged with take/detain in company with intent to obtain advantage (maximum 14 years) and assault occasioning actual bodily harm (maximum 5 years). The Crown alleged that Soltani, as the leader of a group associated with the Hells Angels motorcycle gang, detained a complainant over four days, repeatedly assaulted and threatened him, and attempted to obtain financial advantage from him. Soltani denies the allegations and membership in the motorcycle gang.
The alleged offending culminated when police raided a house at Parramatta on the fourth day and found the severely injured complainant. The complainant suffered extensive bilateral fractures to the eye socket, face, and nose, eye trauma requiring surgery, fractured ribs, and a fractured right leg. When police arrived, Soltani attempted to flee by climbing out a bedroom window and was arrested in the backyard. CCTV footage captured him attending and leaving locations where the complainant was allegedly held.
Soltani’s trial was listed for 25 May 2026, with a trial readiness hearing scheduled for 10 October 2025. He had been in custody since his arrest and sought bail with proposed conditions including daily police reporting, a curfew, $10,000 surety, and non-contact provisions.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Schmidt refused Soltani’s application for bail under section 19 of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW). The court found that Soltani posed unacceptable risks of non-appearance, commission of further serious offences, danger to the complainant and community, and interference with evidence or witnesses. While Soltani argued the Crown case was weak (claiming CCTV showed the complainant was already injured before entering the house), the court found the Crown’s case was strong. The applicant’s presence at the house when police raided it, combined with the severity of injuries inflicted while he was present, demonstrated his involvement despite gaps in the evidence.
The court accepted that Soltani faced genuine personal hardships: he is a builder with custody responsibilities for two children, suffers anxiety and depression, lost his father in February 2025, and has a partner requiring care due to serious injury and illness. However, the court found these circumstances, while important, did not outweigh the serious risks posed by releasing someone accused of violent gang-related crime. The court noted Soltani’s criminal record dating to 1997, including drug supply offences and weapon-related convictions, as well as his admitted association with Hells Angels members—despite his denial of membership.
The court emphasized that Soltani’s conduct when police arrived—attempting to flee rather than cooperate or seek medical attention for the severely injured victim—was consistent with consciousness of guilt. The court concluded the proposed bail conditions could not adequately address the dangers to the complainant (who had already been moved due to safety concerns) and the broader community.
Key Takeaways
- Serious violent offences and gang associations create substantial bail barriers that personal hardships and proposed conditions may not overcome.
- Victim safety is a paramount consideration; courts will refuse bail where the victim remains at risk, even if the accused denies the allegations.
- Circumstantial evidence—such as presence at a crime scene, CCTV placing someone at key locations, and behavior upon police arrival—can support detention even where some evidentiary gaps exist.
- Consciousness of guilt (attempting to flee, failing to seek medical help) weighs heavily against bail.
- Criminal associations, even if denied, are considered when assessing unacceptable risks under bail legislation.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates how Australian courts balance the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty against the serious risks posed by alleged violent crime, particularly where gang involvement is alleged. The decision reinforces that bail conditions—even strict ones—may be inadequate when the accused faces serious charges, has a relevant criminal history, and the victim faces ongoing safety risks. The court’s finding that the proposed conditions “are incapable of adequately addressing” the identified risks establishes a high threshold for bail in gang-related violent crime cases.
The judgment also demonstrates courts’ willingness to infer association with criminal organizations based on circumstantial evidence (prior sentencing remarks, custodial records, gang affiliations of associates) even when the accused denies formal membership. This has practical implications for persons accused in gang-related investigations, as denial of membership alone may not dispel bail concerns where evidence of association is strong.