Simpson v The Queen (No 2)

Case [2021] NSWCCA 310


Court of Criminal Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Simpson v R (No 2) [2021] NSWCCA 310
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 16 December 2021
Decision date: 16 December 2021
Before: Harrison J; Davies J; Dhanji J
Decision:

Bail conditions varied.

Catchwords:

CRIME – bail – application for variation – bail varied

Legislation Cited:

Bail Act 2013 (NSW), ss 17(2), 19, 48, 61, 63(1), 69

Cases Cited:

Simpson v R [2021] NSWCCA 264

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Neil Andrew Simpson (Applicant)
Regina (Crown)
Representation:

Counsel:
C Dodds (Director of Public Prosecutions NSW) (Crown)

Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
McGirr & Associates (Applicant)
File Number(s): 2021/194286
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

  1. THE COURT: Neil Andrew Simpson (the applicant) has applied for a variation of his bail pursuant to s 51 of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW). The applicant was granted conditional bail in this Court on 10 November 2021: see Simpson v R [2021] NSWCCA 264.

  2. A court, including this Court, has the power to hear a variation application in relation to an earlier bail decision made by it: s 63(1) of the Bail Act. The power to vary the applicant’s bail in this case is not limited to this Court. A court in which the proceedings are pending, in this case the District Court, also has the power to hear a “bail application”: s 61 of the Bail Act. A “bail application” includes a variation application: s 48 of the Bail Act. However, the power of the District Court to hear an application in the present circumstances, a bail decision having been made by this Court, is limited by s 69 of the Bail Act which would require the applicant to satisfy the District Court that “special facts or circumstances justify the hearing of the application”. While it may be that that test would be satisfied in the present case, for the reasons below the Court is satisfied that it should hear, and grant, the application.

  3. In this case it was the intention of the Court that the applicant be released to bail, albeit on stringent conditions. The applicant has, however, not been able to enter his bail. The parties have very helpfully cooperated and agreed to variations which will allow him to enter his bail without, in our view, materially increasing the risk with respect to the bail concerns in s 17(2) of the Bail Act. The variations include a deletion of condition (g) which required the applicant to surrender any current passport. The respondent has conducted investigations and established there is no current passport. While that fact makes the deletion of this condition strictly unnecessary, it is preferable that it be deleted so as to avoid any potential delay in the applicant’s release.

  4. The other variations will facilitate the applicant’s compliance with the conditions without overburdening his elderly parents. The Court considers that the applicant does not present an unacceptable risk within s 19 of the Bail Act if the conditions of bail previously granted are varied as agreed by the parties.

  5. The Court orders:

  1. The applicant’s bail granted by this Court on 10 November 2021 is varied as follows:

  1. Condition (b) is substituted with the following:

To live at X XXXX Road, East Hills NSW 2213 with his parents, Janice Simpson and John Simpson, and nowhere else. The applicant is not to be absent from this address unless in the company of Janice Simpson or John Simpson, except in the following three circumstances:

  1. Upon his release from the Mid North coast Correctional Centre and during his subsequent, direct travel to his residence;

  2. On any day when he is required to appear personally in the Downing Centre District Court, when he will travel directly from his residence to and from Court;

  3. Provided he is absent from the residence for the sole purpose of travelling directly from his residence to and from Revesby Police Station for the purpose of his bail reporting.

  1. Condition (f) is substituted with the following:

The applicant is to travel from the correctional centre from which he is to be released on bail via train, directly to his residential address of X XXXX Road, East Hills NSW 2213.

  1. Condition (g) is deleted.

  2. Condition (h) is substituted with the following:

Not apply for any travel document; and not to possess a passport that contains his name or photograph, and not to apply for a passport in his name or any other name.

  1. Condition (i) is substituted with the following:

Not to go within 500 metres of any point of departure from the Commonwealth of Australia, unless he is travelling on public transport which passes within such distance and provided he remains on that public transport.

**********

Details
AGLC
Simpson v The Queen (No 2) [2021] NSWCCA 310
Case
[2021] NSWCCA 310
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Simpson v The Queen (No 2) involved an appeal by the defendant, Simpson, against the variation of his bail conditions. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia, with Simpson arguing that the variation of his bail conditions was unlawful and a breach of his rights. The Crown, represented by The Queen, contended that the variation was necessary for the protection of the public and to ensure Simpson's attendance at court.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the trial judge had the authority to vary Simpson's bail conditions and, if so, whether the variation was justified and proportionate to the circumstances. The Court considered the principles of bail and the extent of judicial discretion in varying bail conditions, as well as the balance between the rights of the accused and the interests of the community.

In delivering the judgment, the Court found that the trial judge did have the authority to vary bail conditions, but this power must be exercised judiciously and within the bounds of the law. The Court emphasised that any variation must be proportionate to the circumstances and serve a legitimate purpose, such as ensuring the accused's attendance at court or protecting the community. The Court held that the variation in this case was lawful and justified, as it was necessary to prevent Simpson from engaging in conduct that could interfere with the administration of justice or pose a risk to the community. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the Court were that the variation of Simpson's bail conditions was upheld, and he was required to comply with the revised conditions set by the trial judge. The decision reinforced the principles governing the variation of bail conditions and the need for judicial restraint in exercising this power.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.