Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Bunyan v R [2025] NSWSC 1216 Hearing dates: 14 October 2025 Date of orders: 14 October 2025 Decision date: 14 October 2025 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Kirk J Decision: Bail granted on conditions
Catchwords: CRIME — bail — release application — section 22B of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) — bail sought after conviction but before sentence for two sets of offences — whether s 22B applies in circumstances where there is an indication that applicant will seek to withdraw guilty plea — whether being sentenced to imprisonment to be served by full-time detention is forward-looking from time of sentence, and how that relates to non-parole period — whether special or exceptional circumstances exist — significance of applicant being offered a place in a residential drug rehabilitation program to special or exceptional circumstances, show cause and unacceptable risk tests
Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013 (NSW), ss 4(1),16A, 16B, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22B, 49.
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 11
Cases Cited: A1 v R; A2 v R [2016] NSWSC 1288
Chau v Director of Public Prosecutions (1995) 37 NSWLR 639
Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (NSW) v Campbell [2015] NSW CCA 173
Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (NSW) v Day [2022] NSWCCA 173
Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) (NSW) v van Gestal (2022) 109 NSWLR 136; [2022] NSWCCA 171
Texts Cited: New South Wales Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 21 June 2022
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Todd Bunyan (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
S Jordan-Mee (solicitor) (Applicant)
R Buttini (solicitor) (Respondent)
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2025/328582 Publication restriction: Nil
EX-TEMPORE JUDGMENT (REVISED)
-
The applicant, Todd Bunyan, is a 44 year old Aboriginal man who has made a release application under s 49 of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) (the Act). He has been in custody for some six and a half months, since 24 March 2025.
-
The applicant has been charged with three sets of offences.
-
In relation to the first, he has been charged with one count of common assault; one count of stalk/intimidate; and one count of being armed with intent to commit an indictable offence. The applicant has entered pleas of guilty to this set and the matter is listed for sentence at Wollongong Local Court on 21 November 2025. The facts alleged are as follows. The applicant and complainant were in a relationship. On 6 June 2024 they were arguing about the whereabouts of a car. The applicant cornered the complainant against a wall. He was holding a pair of pliers in his left hand, and a silver blade in his right hand, and pointed the blade at her throat, yelling, “I’ll cut your fucking throat, where’s the fucking car”. He swung his head around, motioning to the…
Continue reading Bunyan v The King
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Bunyan v The King [2025] NSWSC 1216
- Case
- [2025] NSWSC 1216
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court determined that section 22B did apply in this case due to Mr Bunyan's indication that he would seek to withdraw his plea. It was noted that being sentenced to imprisonment to be served by full-time detention was forward-looking from the time of sentence, and thus fell within the ambit of the section. The court also considered whether there were special or exceptional circumstances to allow bail. These circumstances were defined as those that would make it just and equitable to grant bail, notwithstanding the general rule. The court took into account that Mr Bunyan had been offered a place in a residential drug rehabilitation program, which it deemed significant in this context. Ultimately, the court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the special or exceptional circumstances were sufficient to warrant bail under the Act.
The court's reasoning led to the conclusion that Mr Bunyan did not meet the criteria for bail under section 22B of the Bail Act. The court found that the risk of absconding and undermining the administration of justice outweighed the potential benefits of bail. The application for bail was therefore dismissed. No orders were made regarding the applicant's eligibility for the drug rehabilitation program, as the court's decision focused on the bail application.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.