R v HAZ [2018] NSWSC 386

R v HAZ [2018] NSWSC 386

The applicant did not establish any changed circumstances relevant to the grant of bail or any new material information within Bail Act 2013 s 74. Increased security was irrelevant because failure to appear was not a Crown bail concern; electronic monitoring did not materially mitigate the identified risks of serious offending and danger; the asserted further delay to trial was unsupported by sufficient material; the suggestion that the Crown case had diminished was too general; and the absence of offending or interference while in custody was not a relevant changed circumstance. The Court was therefore required to refuse to hear the further release application and dismiss it.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Bail Release Application / Second Release Application After Earlier Refusal; Threshold Issue Under Bail Act 2013 S 74
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['release Application' 'multiple Release Applications' 'change of Circumstances' 'new Material Information' 'electronic Monitoring' 'delay to Trial']

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 Release Application / Second Release Application After Earlier Refusal; Threshold Issue Under Bail Act 2013 S 74

  1. 1 ['Whether, after a previous refusal of bail by the same Court, there were grounds for a further release application under Bail Act 2013 s 74.' 'Whether the applicant established, on the balance of probabilities, that material information relevant to the grant of bail was available that was not presented on the previous application.' "Whether circumstances relevant to the grant of bail had changed since the previous application, including proposed security, electronic monitoring, delay to trial, the strength of the Crown case, and the applicant's conduct in custody."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not establish any changed circumstances relevant to the grant of bail or any new material information within Bail Act 2013 s 74. Increased security was irrelevant because failure to appear was not a Crown bail concern; electronic monitoring did not materially mitigate the identified risks of serious offending and danger; the asserted further delay to trial was unsupported by sufficient material; the suggestion that the Crown case had diminished was too general; and the absence of offending or interference while in custody was not a relevant changed circumstance. The Court was therefore required to refuse to hear the further release application and dismiss it.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']