R v Diallo (No 12); Re an application for bail by witness MM

The case before the court involved an application for bail by a witness, referred to as MM, who had been subpoenaed to appear at the trial of two individuals, Diallo (No 12) and another. MM had previously appeared at the trial but failed to appear as required on a subsequent date. A bench warrant was subsequently executed, and MM was arrested. MM applied for bail to attend the next day's court sitting, to which the prosecution did not object. The legal issues before the court were whether MM was eligible for bail and, if so, what bail conditions should be imposed.

The court considered the relevant statutory provisions and case law, noting that MM had complied with the subpoena on the first occasion and had a genuine reason for the subsequent non-appearance. The court acknowledged that MM's attendance was necessary for the proper administration of justice and that the prosecution did not object to bail. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that witnesses who had been served with a subpoena appeared when required. However, the court also recognised that MM's attendance was in the interests of justice, and that there were no substantial reasons to refuse bail. The court imposed conditions that MM travel directly to and from their home to the court complex and that MM remain available for trial.

The court granted the application for bail with the specified conditions. The final orders included that MM be released on bail, subject to the conditions outlined, and that MM attend the next court sitting. The court also directed that MM's name be removed from the register of persons subject to a bench warrant. The prosecution did not appeal the decision.