Jones v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) - [2025] NSWSC 810

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Jones v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2025] NSWSC 810
Hearing dates: 17 July 2025
Date of orders: 17 July 2025
Decision date: 17 July 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hamill J
Decision:
Bail granted

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – release application – show cause – extremely serious allegations – chilling – offence allegedly committed where warrant existed – flight to Western Australia – where applicant pregnant through period of remand – where applicant gave birth days before bail application – where applicant unable to access programmes – separation of mother and infant – Bugmy Bar Book – cause shown – whether risk “unacceptable” – family support – strict conditions – conditional bail granted

Legislation Cited:
Bail Act 2013 (NSW), s 19

Cases Cited:
N/A

Texts Cited:
N/A

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Nykeeta Jones (Applicant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Legal Aid Commission (Applicant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2025/00210995
Publication restriction: N/A

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

Nykeeta Jones makes a release application in circumstances where she is required to show cause why her detention is not justified. As I have said in previous applications on other occasions, the show cause requirement under the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) arises in a vast array of circumstances, some more serious than others. It has to be said that on the material before me, this is a case at the very serious end, or perhaps extremely serious end, of cases in which the “show cause” requirement arises.
The reason that I make that observation is that there are two sets of charges. The first set of charges involved the possession of a shortened firearm, an offence which occurred on or about 17 July 2024. It became known to police after they executed a search warrant at premises where the applicant was living. She was aware of the fact of the search and, according to material in the prosecution case, so was her sister. Her sister later told police that Ms Jones was aware after the search that she (the applicant) was wanted by police in respect of the possession of the shotgun and was actively avoiding apprehension.
A warrant was issued for her arrest and it was during the currency of that warrant, that a far more serious offence was allegedly committed in around November of that year. That offence was originally charged as an attempted murder along with a kidnapping and other offences. The facts, without going into them in great detail, are chilling.
It is alleged that the applicant was involved in a joint criminal enterprise with one male offender and another female offender whereby the alleged victim was kidnapped, taken to an isolated place in a stolen motor car, forced to strip naked whereupon it is alleged that the applicant gave him a choice of being shot or being stabbed. I do not think the victim made that choice, but, rather, the male offender then shot…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Jones v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)

Details

AGLC: Jones v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2025] NSWSC 810
Case: [2025] NSWSC 810
Decision Date: 17 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Jones v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW), the defendant sought conditional release on bail following their arrest for a serious criminal offence. The case was heard by the NSW Supreme Court, which had to consider the application under the common law principle of'show cause'. The applicant, who had been in custody since the warrant was issued, presented several compelling arguments for bail, including the fact that she was pregnant throughout her time in custody and had given birth just days before the bail application was made. This resulted in a separation from her newborn child, which the court had to take into account.

The central legal issue for the court was whether the risk posed by the applicant was unacceptable, particularly in light of the serious allegations against them, and whether the applicant had shown cause for their release on bail. The applicant argued that they had strong family support and would comply with strict bail conditions. The Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) contended that the allegations were extremely serious and that the risk of reoffending was high. The court had to balance these competing considerations and decide whether the risk posed by the applicant was acceptable enough to warrant their release on bail.

The court recognised the importance of the principles set out in Bugmy v R, which emphasise the need to consider the impact of incarceration on Indigenous people and their families. The court found that the applicant had shown cause for their release on bail, primarily due to the significant impact of separation from her newborn child. The court also noted the applicant's strong family support and the strict conditions that could be imposed to mitigate the risk of reoffending. Consequently, the court granted the applicant conditional bail, subject to strict conditions to ensure public safety and to support the applicant's reintegration into the community.

The court's final orders were that the applicant be released on bail, subject to strict conditions that included regular reporting to the police, residing at a specified address, and refraining from contact with certain individuals. The applicant was also required to surrender their passport and any travel documents. The court emphasised that the applicant's release was conditional upon strict compliance with these conditions and that any breach would result in the immediate recall of the bail.

Orders