R v Dacich [2019] NSWSC 1517

R v Dacich [2019] NSWSC 1517

The Supreme Court had jurisdiction to grant bail because the applicant's judicial review proceedings concerning her conviction or sentence were proceedings pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal being part of that Court, so that s 61 of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) applied. In any event, the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) did not expressly codify or exclude the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to grant bail, and the Court's inherent jurisdiction supported the grant where necessary. Although there was an unacceptable risk of commission of further serious offences, that risk could be addressed by very strict conditions, and the applicant's need to prepare the pending Court of Appeal proceedings,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Bail Application Pending Judicial Review / Supreme Court Application for Bail After Conviction and Sentence, With Judicial Review Proceedings Pending in the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Conditional bail granted.
Legal Topics
['jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to Grant Bail' 'bail Pending Judicial Review' 'bail Concerns' 'inherent Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court' 'proceedings for an Offence Pending in Court']
['criminal Law' 'bail' 'criminal Procedure' 'judicial Review'] ['jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to Grant Bail' 'bail Pending Judicial Review' 'bail Concerns' 'inherent Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court' 'proceedings for an Offence Pending in Court']

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

Bail Application Pending Judicial Review / Supreme Court Application for Bail After Conviction and Sentence, With Judicial Review Proceedings Pending in the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction under the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) to grant bail where the applicant had commenced judicial review proceedings in the Court of Appeal.' 'Whether proceedings seeking orders in the nature of certiorari concerning a conviction or sentence are proceedings for the offence pending in the Supreme Court for the purposes of s 61 of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW).' 'Whether the Court of Appeal is part of the Supreme Court for the purposes of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW).' 'Whether, apart from the Bail Act 2013 (NSW), the Supreme Court retained inherent jurisdiction to grant bail.' 'Whether the applicant posed unacceptable bail risks, including failure to appear, interference with witnesses, danger to the community, or commission of serious offences.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court had jurisdiction to grant bail because the applicant's judicial review proceedings concerning her conviction or sentence were proceedings pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal being part of that Court, so that s 61 of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) applied. In any event, the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) did not expressly codify or exclude the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to grant bail, and the Court's inherent jurisdiction supported the grant where necessary. Although there was an unacceptable risk of commission of further serious offences, that risk could be addressed by very strict conditions, and the applicant's need to prepare the pending Court of Appeal proceedings,...

Court Disposition

Conditional bail granted.

Orders

  • ['Clare Dacich was granted bail in relation to the charges of which she had been convicted and sentenced, pending any conclusion of the proceedings before the Court of Appeal.' "The bail was subject to strict conditions recorded on the applicant's record of proceedings and available through Justice Link."]