R (Cth) v IA - [2025] NSWSC 761

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R (Cth) v IA [2025] NSWSC 761
Hearing dates: 8 July 2025
Date of orders: 15 July 2025
Decision date: 15 July 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
(1)   Grant the variation to delete the condition for electronic monitoring and consequential alterations.
(2)   Grant bail in relation to the offences with the number 2025/72410, being six counts of using a carriage service to access child abuse material and six counts of possession or control of child abuse material with the same conditions as for the terrorism offences as amended hereby.
(3)   Dismiss the detention application.
(4)   Conditions of bail will be as per Exhibit 3 in the proceedings.

Catchwords:
CRIME — bail — variation application — detention application — terrorist offences — “exceptional circumstances” — Bail Act 2013 (NSW) s 30A — private electronic monitoring — variation granted
CRIME — bail — release application — child abuse material offences — bail granted

Legislation Cited:
Bail Act 1978 (NSW), s 9D
Bail Act 2013 (NSW), ss 16A, 16B, 17, 18, 22A, 30A, Sch 3, Pt 6
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 15AA
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), ss 11.5, 101.6, 474.22, 474.22A
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), s 51

Cases Cited:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Dirani [2022] NSWCCA 89
Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28
R v Daron John Wright (unreported 7 June 2005)
R v Hilton (1987) 7 NSWLR 745
R v Mahoney-Smith [1967] 2 NSWR 154
R v Michael John Brown [2013] NSWCCA 178
R v NK [2016] NSWSC 498
SZTAL v Minister for Immigration (2017) 262 CLR 362; [2017] HCA 34
Xerri v R [2025] NSWSC 560

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: IA (Applicant)
Rex (Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Austin (Applicant)
E McGuiness (Crown)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (Crown)
Legal Aid (Applicant)

File Number(s): 2025/248822

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: The Court must deal with three applications relating to a juvenile, IA, who is 17 years of age. The applications relate to his imprisonment and are applications by IA for variation of bail that had been granted and a release application in relation to an offence or offences for which bail had been refused. The third application is a detention application made by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (hereinafter “the CDPP” or “the Commonwealth”) in respect of the bail that had already been granted.
The offences with which IA (hereinafter “the applicant”) has been charged are most serious. The first two offences charged against the applicant are terrorism or terrorism related offences. The applicant is charged with conspiracy to engage in an act in preparation for, or planning, a terrorist act, contrary to ss 11.5(1) and 101.6(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (hereinafter “the Criminal Code”) and supply, or knowingly take part in the supply, of a firearm to another person who was not authorised to possess the firearm by a licence…

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 R (Cth) v IA

Details

AGLC: R (Cth) v IA [2025] NSWSC 761
Case: [2025] NSWSC 761
Decision Date: 15 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R (Cth) v IA involved a respondent who had been charged with serious terrorist offences and separate child abuse material offences. The respondent had initially been denied bail, but subsequently applied for bail variation and release. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether the respondent's circumstances had changed sufficiently to warrant a variation of the original bail conditions, specifically to permit private electronic monitoring as a condition of bail. Another issue was whether the respondent, who had also been charged with child abuse material offences, was eligible for bail in relation to these charges.

The court considered the criteria set out in the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) section 30A, which allows for the variation of bail conditions in exceptional circumstances. The court noted the seriousness of the terrorist offences and the risk of re-offending, but also recognised the potential for private electronic monitoring to mitigate these risks. The court concluded that the respondent's circumstances had indeed changed to an extent that warranted a variation of the bail conditions, allowing for private electronic monitoring. Regarding the child abuse material offences, the court determined that the respondent's prospects of a fair trial and the risk of re-offending were sufficiently managed by other bail conditions, and thus granted bail in relation to these charges.

The court ultimately varied the respondent's bail conditions to include private electronic monitoring and granted bail in relation to the child abuse material offences. The court's decision was based on a careful assessment of the respondent's circumstances and the risk factors associated with the respective charges. The orders included specific conditions for the electronic monitoring and detailed the circumstances under which the respondent could be released on bail.

Orders