By Paul Gregoire and Ugur Nedim
Neil Andrew Simpson has significant criminal history, having been convicted of a range of offences from fraud to smuggling fauna.
The defendant appeared before the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal (NSWCCA) on 25 October 2021 for an application to be released on bail, after having been remanded since his arrest on 24 June 2020.
At the time of the bail application, there were two criminal indictments before the NSW District Court.
One of these related to a long list of offences under NSW state laws, while the other indictment consisted of a number of crimes contravening federal law.
The indictments have not yet reached trial, and defendant has made clear he wishes to represent himself in court for both matters.
The offences
The state offences involve a 2011 police search of a storage unit turning up identification documents and a card maker, credit card and loans falsely obtained in 2014 using his son’s name, the possession of storage devices with fake identities, as well as 2019 credit card fraud crimes.
The federal matter consists of offences under biodiversity laws relating to the attempted posting of three Shingleback lizards to Korea in 2018, as well as the 2019 importation of foreign species, including three green iguanas and three red-bellied short-necked turtles from Hong Kong.
Simpson had previously been refused bail twice. One occasion involved the NSW Local Court in October 2020, and the other was via the NSW District Court last June. The defendant posing an unacceptable fight risk was given as reason not to release him into the community.
A truckload of offences
The defendant is set to stand trial on the state matter on 20 June this year, while no date has been scheduled for the federal matter as yet.
Part of Simpson’s case for bail involved that it would be close to two years of having been kept on remand by the commencement date of his first case, which had previously been delayed due to COVID-19.
In terms of the indictment relating to the state offences, Simpson has been charged with 52 offences contrary to the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
This includes 32 counts of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception, contrary to now-repealed section 178BA(1) of the Crimes Act. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 5 years behind bars.
Despite section 178BA having been repealed on 22 February 2010, this offence is still triggered as it applied during the time the offending took place over 2003 to 2010.
Today, the similar offence of fraud is contained in section 192E of the Crimes Act, and it carries 10 years inside.
The federal indictment consists of 14 counts relating to three import and export of species offences that contravene the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth). Each of these crimes carries up to 10 years imprisonment and/or a fine of $222,000.
Before the court
In his findings, NSWCCA Justice Hament Dhanji made special mention of the fact that two sets of Crown prosecutors – Commonwealth and NSW – had moved to oppose the bail application, which, he noted, could appear as procedural unfairness, especially as the defendant is self-represented.
His Honour went on to mention 57-year-old Simpson’s long criminal history. The defendant has a list of prior fraud convictions going back to the mid-90s, with time spent inside as well as suspended sentences having been imposed.
While prior import and export of live species crimes perpetrated mid-last decade also saw him convicted and released on a good behaviour bond.
Two letters from the same NSW police officer were submitted, with one provided by each prosecutor’s office. The justice was surprised by the appearance of these as they did little more than restate evidence before the court, and where new facts were noted, they were unsubstantiated.
As for his case for bail, Simpson stated that the two years he was spending in prison on remand prior to going before the courts was too long, as well as asserting that being detained in gaol was having a detrimental effect on his preparations for his self-representation in the two cases.
In regard to his mid-2021 bail application, Simpson had cited his inability to access electronic evidence briefs. The District Court sought to resolve this issue by supplying the inmate with a laptop to do so. However, pandemic restrictions had resulted in the device not always being available.
Simpson further explained to the court that at the time he was trying to prepare for his trials whilst sitting on his bed in his cell. This was limited to the hours where the lights remained on and was accompanied with his cellmate going about his daily business in the same cell.
An email from the defendant’s mother was also considered by the appeals court. This explained that her son was the primary carer for her husband and herself, and she assured the court that if he was granted bail, Simpson would reside at her house under his parent’s watch.
Both Crown cases against Simpson’s bail request asserted that he posed an unacceptable flight risk, due to the fact that the prosecution cases against him were so strong.
Deliberations
Justice Dhanji pointed to the bail test within section 19 of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW), which contains four reasons to be considered in determining whether an individual poses an unacceptable risk and, therefore, must be refused bail.
The four considerations are whether the defendant may fail to appear at further proceedings for the offences, their likelihood of committing more serious offences, whether they pose a danger to the community, as well as their potential to interfere with witnesses or evidence.
His Honour found that while there were reasons for flight risk concerns in terms of avoiding prison time, along with Simpson’s ability to create false identities, it was considered that his close ties in the community, as well as his wife’s willingness to provide substantial security countered this.
The most detailed deliberations regarded Simpson’s potential to commit further crimes, especially as some of his current offences were committed just after he was last convicted of such crimes. But this would be less of a concern if he were to reside with his parents, the justice determined.
The NSWCCA further found that Simpson posed no risk in regard to being a danger to others or potentially interfering with the case more broadly.
Released on bail
Justice Dhanji stated that he was particularly concerned about the defendant spending up to two years in prison on remand prior to his first trial taking place, which could be further drawn out due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“I am also influenced by the difficulties the applicant has experienced and will continue to experience in preparing what is, at least in the case of the state matters, a complex matter for trial,” his Honour said.
“Preparing a complex case while relying on handwritten notes with limited access to legal resources is far from ideal.”
So, on 10 November 2021, Justice Dhanji ordered that Simpson be released on bail with 15 conditions applying, which included having to reside at his parent’s house, refraining from entering a post office and not being allowed to go within 500 metres of an exit point out of the country.
NSWCCA Justices Ian Harrison and David Davies agreed with their colleague’s orders.
This guy deserves to rot in hell