DPP v Basic [2008] NSWCA 361

DPP v Basic [2008] NSWCA 361

Although the Crown case against the respondent was stronger than Grove J had considered, it was not overwhelming, and the combination of substantial delay before trial, the Crown's late change to the proposed indictment causing further delay, the respondent's strong family ties and defence arrangements in Melbourne, and conditions addressing flight risk constituted exceptional circumstances under s 9D of the Bail Act 1978. Any need for an interstate transfer application if the respondent remained in Victorian custody was a matter for the authorities and did not justify refusing bail.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Bail Review / Application by the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions for Review of Grove J's Decision Granting Bail Before Trial
Outcome
Application for review refused; grant of bail confirmed subject to conditions, with conditions 2, 3 and 9 suspended while the respondent is in custody in Victoria.
Legal Topics
['bail Before Trial' 'exceptional Circumstances' 'delay Before Trial' 'interstate Prisoner Transfer' 'parole Cancellation']
['criminal Law' 'bail'] ['bail Before Trial' 'exceptional Circumstances' 'delay Before Trial' 'interstate Prisoner Transfer' 'parole Cancellation']

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 Law Bail Review / Application by the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions for Review of Grove J's Decision Granting Bail Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent established exceptional circumstances within the meaning of s 9D of the Bail Act 1978 so as to be entitled to bail.' 'Whether delay from arrest and custody in May 2007 to the proposed trial commencing on 1 June 2009 constituted exceptional circumstances.' 'Whether the risk of the respondent removing himself from the jurisdiction was adequately addressed by bail conditions.' 'Whether possible delay and process under the Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act 1982 if the respondent were taken into custody in Victoria justified refusing bail.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Crown case against the respondent was stronger than Grove J had considered, it was not overwhelming, and the combination of substantial delay before trial, the Crown's late change to the proposed indictment causing further delay, the respondent's strong family ties and defence arrangements in Melbourne, and conditions addressing flight risk constituted exceptional circumstances under s 9D of the Bail Act 1978. Any need for an interstate transfer application if the respondent remained in Victorian custody was a matter for the authorities and did not justify refusing bail.

Court Disposition

Application for review refused; grant of bail confirmed subject to conditions, with conditions 2, 3 and 9 suspended while the respondent is in custody in Victoria.

Orders

  • ['Application for review refused.' 'Grant of bail made by Grove J on 27 November 2008 confirmed subject to the conditions which his Honour imposed.' 'Conditions 2, 3 and 9 to be suspended for so long as the respondent is in custody in Victoria.']