Regina v Kaddour and Regina v Turkmani [2000] NSWSC 888

Regina v Kaddour and Regina v Turkmani [2000] NSWSC 888

The Court held that it was competent, in the exercise of its discretion under Pt 6 of the Bail Act 1978, to review Hidden J's decision granting bail and, if appropriate, substitute a different decision. No condition precedent requiring new or different material applies to such a review, apart from restrictions provided in Pt 6 and matters inherent in the discretionary word "may" in s 45. The application for review should therefore be entertained.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Application for Bail Review / Preliminary Issue Whether the Supreme Court Should Entertain an Application by the Director of Public Prosecutions to Review a Decision Granting Bail
Outcome
Application for review entertained.
Legal Topics
['bail Review' 'supreme Court Power to Review Bail Decisions' 'revocation of Bail Granted by a Judge of Co Ordinate Jurisdiction' 'meaning of "may" in Bail Act 1978' 'discretion to Entertain Review' 'fresh Evidence or New Material on Bail Review']
['criminal Law' 'bail'] ['bail Review' 'supreme Court Power to Review Bail Decisions' 'revocation of Bail Granted by a Judge of Co Ordinate Jurisdiction' 'meaning of "may" in Bail Act 1978' 'discretion to Entertain Review' 'fresh Evidence or New Material on Bail Review']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Bail Review / Preliminary Issue Whether the Supreme Court Should Entertain an Application by the Director of Public Prosecutions to Review a Decision Granting Bail

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Supreme Court may review a bail decision made by another Supreme Court judge of co-ordinate jurisdiction.' 'Whether a bail review under Pt 6 of the Bail Act 1978 requires new, additional or different material before it may be entertained.' 'Whether the word "may" in s 45 of the Bail Act 1978 creates a discretion in the Supreme Court to entertain or refuse a bail review application.' 'Whether considerations such as judicial comity, alleged judge shopping, and the correctness or futility of review affect the exercise of discretion.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that it was competent, in the exercise of its discretion under Pt 6 of the Bail Act 1978, to review Hidden J's decision granting bail and, if appropriate, substitute a different decision. No condition precedent requiring new or different material applies to such a review, apart from restrictions provided in Pt 6 and matters inherent in the discretionary word "may" in s 45. The application for review should therefore be entertained.

Court Disposition

Application for review entertained.

Orders

  • ['The application for review should be entertained.']