A1 v R; A2 v R [2016] NSWSC 1288

A1 v R; A2 v R [2016] NSWSC 1288

Although the applicants had been in custody for an unduly lengthy period and the delay in service of the Crown brief was unacceptable, each was charged with a show cause offence punishable by life imprisonment, the Crown case was assessed at this stage as strong, the alleged crime was planned and violent, and there was a risk to the safety of at least one central witness that could not be adequately addressed by conditions. The strength of the Crown case prevailed in the evaluative assessment, and neither applicant showed cause why detention was not justified.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Bail Applications / Supreme Court Applications for Bail Before Trial After Committal
Outcome
Application by A1 dismissed. Application by A2 dismissed.
Legal Topics
['show Cause Offences' 'unacceptable Risk Assessment' 'murder' 'accessory After the Fact to Murder' 'suppression and Non Publication Orders' 'interference With Witnesses']
['criminal Law' 'bail' 'criminal Procedure'] ['show Cause Offences' 'unacceptable Risk Assessment' 'murder' 'accessory After the Fact to Murder' 'suppression and Non Publication Orders' 'interference With Witnesses']

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

Criminal Bail Applications / Supreme Court Applications for Bail Before Trial After Committal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether A1, charged with murder, showed cause under the Bail Act 2013 why his detention was not justified.' 'Whether A2, charged with being an accessory after the fact to murder, showed cause under the Bail Act 2013 why his detention was not justified.' 'Whether the strength of the Crown case, the seriousness of the alleged offences, delay in custody, and risk to a witness justified continued detention.' 'Whether a suppression order should be made to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice and ensure a fair trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicants had been in custody for an unduly lengthy period and the delay in service of the Crown brief was unacceptable, each was charged with a show cause offence punishable by life imprisonment, the Crown case was assessed at this stage as strong, the alleged crime was planned and violent, and there was a risk to the safety of at least one central witness that could not be adequately addressed by conditions. The strength of the Crown case prevailed in the evaluative assessment, and neither applicant showed cause why detention was not justified.

Court Disposition

Application by A1 dismissed. Application by A2 dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The names of the applicants, the deceased and various witnesses likely to give evidence at the trial, the events the subject of the applications, and any material tending to identify the individuals, be suppressed until the conclusion of the trial of the applicants or further order of the Court, whichever occurs...