The Snitch: Why Andrew O’Keefe’s bail application failed

Andrew O’Keefe was this week refused bail on charges that he choked a woman but would likely have been released if he’d altered his application.

How close was ex-TV star Andrew O’Keefe to being released on bail on Monday?

Answer: Really close.

In fact, if O’Keefe had his time again, Snitch reckons he might have done things a bit differently.

From this columnist’s point of view, it looked as if Justice Robertson Wright was going to release O’Keefe on bail on charges that he choked a woman (whose identity is suppressed) in his apartment in the Sydney CBD in January.

But before he did, the judge wanted O’Keefe, whom the court heard was addicted to ice and cocaine, to agree to a stint in a rehab facility that was longer than the three weeks the ex-Channel 7 star was offering as part of his bail application.

Now, from here the story goes one of two ways.

Andrew O’Keefe was refused bail on charges that he choked a woman. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Jeremy Piper

And since the court wasn’t told which version applied, Snitch will give you both versions that we have heard.

One is that the clinic where O’Keefe had a spot reserved did not have anything longer than three weeks available, scuttling plans for a lengthier stay to satisfy the judge. Another is that O’Keefe simply declined to spend any longer than three weeks in rehab.

Justice Wright adjourned the proceedings to allow O’Keefe’s barrister Arjun Chhabra and solicitor Sharon Ramsden to talk to O’Keefe about a lengthier stint in rehab. However, Chhabra returned to the court a short time later and told Justice Wright he had been instructed by his client to proceed with the three-week proposal.

After hearing this, Justice Wright told the court the length of time was not “sufficient” and refused O’Keefe’s bail.

“Were a longer proposal to be put forward, I think the case for release on bail would be significantly improved,” Justice Wright told the court.

If Snitch was a betting man, I’d say we will be seeing another bail application from O’Keefe in the near future.

SILKY SOLUTION

For most of the legal fraternity, Covid provided the glorious benefit of not having to actually go to court.

Instead, legal practitioners could log in from their home or office via computer audio-visual link-up (AVL) and avoid wasting hours waiting around for their matter to be called. But there was one section of the profession that hated it – the silks.

For you see, our Senior Counsels love the age-old tradition that their revered standing at the top of the legal world’s pecking order allowed them to skip the queue.

“I used to be able to swan into a crowded courtroom and just push my way to the front,” one silk told us. “But I can’t do that when I log in via AVL – I hate it.”

On the AVL system, priority via seniority was thrown out the window, meaning our battling silks had to wait in line.

Luckily for them, newly appointed Supreme Court Justice Andrew Bell flagged in his swearing-in ceremony speech on Monday that he is advocating a move back to the good ol’ days of getting bums on seats in that state’s courts. Although it was for more noble reasons than letting silks go first.

“An essential part of being a good lawyer is understanding people and human nature, how others react to different situations, perform under pressure and interact with each other,” Chief Justice Bell said.

Ezzeddine Omar

Ezzeddine Omar’s latest set of charges should come as no surprise given his alleged line of work.

Along with being charged with the murder of gangster Mejid Hamzy, police allege he was a master car rebirther who had a knack for making false number plates and provided his services to the criminal underworld.

Ezzeddine Omar being arrested in connection with the murder of Mejid Hamzy. Picture: NSW Police

According to court documents, many of the allegedly stolen sports cars, including Audis, one of which he is accused of using in the Hamzy murder, were registered to his business
Yaz Enterprises.

On top of the murder charge, Omar’s Yaz Enterprises has been hit with charges for falsely nominating the driver of a vehicle registered to the company that clocked up “a camera recorded offence”.

Got a snitch? Contact [e-mail]