R v Clayton TIERNEY [2014] NSWDC 124

R v Clayton TIERNEY [2014] NSWDC 124

The District Court has jurisdiction under s 50(1) Bail Act 2013 to hear a detention application even where bail has been taken to be dispensed with under s 10(3), as s 50(1) is not limited by prior dispensation and the Act enables an application for refusal or revocation of authority to be at liberty.

Parties
Prosecutor: Crown (DPP); Offender: Clayton Tierney
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application for Detention Order and Bail Determination
Outcome
Conditional bail granted
Legal Topics
Bail Detention Order, Jurisdiction of Court After Bail Dispensed, Interpretation of Bail Act 2013
Criminal Law Bail Bail Detention Order Jurisdiction of Court After Bail Dispensed Interpretation of Bail Act 2013

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crown (DPP)

Prosecutor

Clayton Tierney

Offender

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Application for Detention Order and Bail Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Court has jurisdiction to hear a detention application under s 50 of the Bail Act 2013 when bail has previously been dispensed with under s 10(3)

Ratio Decidendi

The District Court has jurisdiction under s 50(1) Bail Act 2013 to hear a detention application even where bail has been taken to be dispensed with under s 10(3), as s 50(1) is not limited by prior dispensation and the Act enables an application for refusal or revocation of authority to be at liberty.

Court Disposition

Conditional bail granted

Orders

  • Detention application granted
  • Bail initially refused