Hickey v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)

The applicant, Hickey, applied to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for bail in relation to a series of offences for which sentencing was imminent, and a further series of unrelated offences. The Director of Public Prosecutions opposed the application on the basis of the risk of reoffending and the seriousness of the offences. The applicant's application was refused in relation to the offences for which sentencing was imminent but granted in relation to the unrelated offences. Hickey appealed against the refusal of bail in relation to the offences for which sentencing was imminent. The appeal was dismissed. Hickey appealed to the High Court of Australia.
The High Court was required to consider whether the refusal of bail for the offences for which sentencing was imminent was appropriate, given that bail had been granted for the unrelated offences. The Court also needed to determine whether the possibility of an intensive correction order should have been considered as an alternative to bail, and whether the applicant had demonstrated a sufficient case for bail. Furthermore, the Court needed to consider the different functions of the sentencing court and the bail court, and whether the refusal of bail for one offence should have any bearing on the granting of bail for other offences.

The High Court held that the refusal of bail for the offences for which sentencing was imminent was appropriate. The Court noted that the sentencing court was entitled to consider the seriousness of the offences and the risk of reoffending when deciding whether to grant bail. The Court held that the possibility of an intensive correction order should not have been considered as an alternative to bail, as the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient case for such an order. The Court also held that the refusal of bail for one offence should not have any bearing on the granting of bail for other offences, as the different functions of the sentencing court and the bail court meant that the two decisions were independent of each other. The Court held that it would be preposterous to think that the bail decision would influence the proper exercise of sentencing discretion.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and held that the refusal of bail for the offences for which sentencing was imminent was appropriate. The Court did not make any orders as to the unrelated offences for which bail had been granted.