R v Hing [2018] NSWSC 408

R v Hing [2018] NSWSC 408

The applicant did not establish any ground under s 74 of the Bail Act 2013 for the Court to hear a further release application. The increased surety was not material to the risk of non-appearance given the very large sums and drug quantity alleged; no further significant delay beyond that previously considered was demonstrated; Professor Hibbert's reports did not diminish the strength of the Crown's multifactorial circumstantial case; and the new evidentiary material either was not material or strengthened rather than weakened the Crown case. The Court was therefore obliged to refuse to hear the release application and dismissed it.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Bail Release Application / Second Release Application in the Supreme Court After Bail Had Previously Been Refused by the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['release Application' 'multiple Release Applications' 'show Cause Requirement' 'change of Circumstances' 'material Information' 'drug Supply' 'proceeds of Crime']
['criminal Law' 'bail'] ['release Application' 'multiple Release Applications' 'show Cause Requirement' 'change of Circumstances' 'material Information' 'drug Supply' 'proceeds of Crime']

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 in the Supreme Court After Bail Had Previously Been Refused by the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s 74 of the Bail Act 2013 permitted the Court to hear a further release application for the same offences.' 'Whether an increased surety from $1.2M to $1.5M was a relevant change in circumstances.' 'Whether alleged additional delay before trial was a relevant change in circumstances.' "Whether Professor Hibbert's expert reports constituted material information affecting the strength of the Crown case." 'Whether new CCTV, UPS consignment, DNA and surveillance material weakened the Crown case or was material to bail.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not establish any ground under s 74 of the Bail Act 2013 for the Court to hear a further release application. The increased surety was not material to the risk of non-appearance given the very large sums and drug quantity alleged; no further significant delay beyond that previously considered was demonstrated; Professor Hibbert's reports did not diminish the strength of the Crown's multifactorial circumstantial case; and the new evidentiary material either was not material or strengthened rather than weakened the Crown case. The Court was therefore obliged to refuse to hear the release application and dismissed it.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']