Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Day [2022] NSWSC 938

Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Day [2022] NSWSC 938

Section 22B of the Bail Act 2013 was not engaged merely because full-time imprisonment was highly likely. The DPP had to satisfy the Court that the Offender will be sentenced to full-time imprisonment in the sense that no other sentencing alternative could lawfully be imposed. Given the material before the Court,...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Bail Detention Application in Criminal Proceedings / Application by the DPP After Conviction and Before Sentencing to Review a District Court Decision Continuing Bail
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['detention Application' 'post Conviction Bail Before Sentencing' 'bail Act 2013 S 22 B' 'special or Exceptional Circumstances' 'full Time Imprisonment' 'standard for Determining Whether an Offender Will Be Sentenced to Full Time Detention']
['criminal Law' 'bail' 'sentencing' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['detention Application' 'post Conviction Bail Before Sentencing' 'bail Act 2013 S 22 B' 'special or Exceptional Circumstances' 'full Time Imprisonment' 'standard for Determining Whether an Offender Will Be Sentenced to Full Time Detention']

Source-derived case record

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 Detention Application in Criminal Proceedings / Application by the DPP After Conviction and Before Sentencing to Review a District Court Decision Continuing Bail

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s 22B of the Bail Act 2013 applied because the Offender will be sentenced to imprisonment to be served by full-time detention.' 'Whether a high likelihood of full-time imprisonment is sufficient to engage s 22B of the Bail Act 2013.' 'Whether the DPP established that no sentencing alternative could lawfully be imposed other than full-time imprisonment.']

Ratio Decidendi

Section 22B of the Bail Act 2013 was not engaged merely because full-time imprisonment was highly likely. The DPP had to satisfy the Court that the Offender will be sentenced to full-time imprisonment in the sense that no other sentencing alternative could lawfully be imposed. Given the material before the Court, including the absence of previous criminal convictions and the likelihood of further subjective material at sentence, the Court was not satisfied that all lawful alternatives to full-time imprisonment were excluded. The detention application was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ["The DPP's detention application was dismissed."]