R v Fallon (a pseudonym) [2017] NSWSC 1796

R v Fallon (a pseudonym) [2017] NSWSC 1796

The transcript of Witness X's committal evidence did not constitute material information for s 74 Bail Act 2013 (NSW) because it would not have made a difference to the earlier refusals of bail or the detention application. Earlier assessments of the Crown case did not substantially depend on Witness X, the jury could still accept parts of Witness X's evidence, and the Crown case remained supported by other evidence. The applicant therefore did not overcome the bar in s 74(1), requiring refusal to hear the further application and dismissal of the release application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Bail/release Application / Application to Hear a Further Release Application Under S 74 Bail Act 2013 (nsw), Following Multiple Previous Bail/release Applications
Outcome
The applicant's release application was dismissed, and a suppression order was made for information tending to reveal the applicant's identity until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings.
Legal Topics
['release Application' 'show Cause Offences' 'material Information Under S 74 Bail Act 2013 (nsw)' 'strength of the Crown Case' 'unacceptable Risks Test' 'suppression of Identity to Prevent Prejudice to Criminal Proceedings']
['criminal Law' 'bail' 'suppression and Non Publication Orders'] ['release Application' 'show Cause Offences' 'material Information Under S 74 Bail Act 2013 (nsw)' 'strength of the Crown Case' 'unacceptable Risks Test' 'suppression of Identity to Prevent Prejudice to Criminal Proceedings']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Bail/release Application / Application to Hear a Further Release Application Under S 74 Bail Act 2013 (nsw), Following Multiple Previous Bail/release Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the transcript of Witness X's committal evidence was material information relevant to the grant of bail that was not presented in previous applications." "Whether the alleged weakening of Witness X's evidence might have made a difference to the outcome of earlier release applications or the detention application." 'Whether the applicant overcame the bar in s 74(1) Bail Act 2013 (NSW) so that a further release application should be heard.' "Whether the applicant's identity should be suppressed until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings."]

Ratio Decidendi

The transcript of Witness X's committal evidence did not constitute material information for s 74 Bail Act 2013 (NSW) because it would not have made a difference to the earlier refusals of bail or the detention application. Earlier assessments of the Crown case did not substantially depend on Witness X, the jury could still accept parts of Witness X's evidence, and the Crown case remained supported by other evidence. The applicant therefore did not overcome the bar in s 74(1), requiring refusal to hear the further application and dismissal of the release application.

Court Disposition

The applicant's release application was dismissed, and a suppression order was made for information tending to reveal the applicant's identity until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's release application is dismissed." 'Under s 7 Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), information tending to reveal the identity of the applicant is suppressed until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings against him on the ground expressed in s 8(1)(a). Effect is to be...