J BY His Litigation Guardian Maxwell Bernard Vardanega v Australian Capital Territory [No 2]

The case before the court involved a person under a disability, represented by a litigation guardian, who had been charged with a criminal offence and was under bail conditions. The litigation guardian sought a discharge from bail on the basis that the charges had been dropped. The Australian Capital Territory opposed the application on the grounds that the court did not have the power to discharge a person from bail.

The court considered the legal issues of whether the Magistrates Court had the power to discharge a person from bail, the applicability of a stay on appeal to habeas corpus proceedings, and the costs incurred by the litigation guardian in the proceedings. The court determined that the Magistrates Court did indeed have the power to discharge a person from bail, and that there was no automatic stay on appeal in habeas corpus proceedings. The court also found that the litigation guardian was personally responsible for the costs of the proceedings but was entitled to indemnity by the plaintiff.

The court ordered that the plaintiff be discharged from bail and that there be no order for the costs of the proceedings. The court noted the desirability of advising the court when a minor reaches majority. The decision highlights the court's power to discharge a person from bail, the absence of an automatic stay on appeal in habeas corpus proceedings, and the responsibility of a litigation guardian for the costs of proceedings.