The Director of Public Prosecutions for the State of South Australia v the District Court of South Australia and Billy-Jo Jeffrey the Director of Public Prosecutions for the State of South Australia v the District..

The Director of Public Prosecutions for the State of South Australia sought a judicial review of orders made by the District Court of South Australia in two separate cases. Each case involved the imposition by the same judge of a "Griffiths remand" on two defendants who had pleaded guilty to criminal offences. The Crown Solicitor accepted service on behalf of the first defendant in each application and indicated that the first defendant would abide by any orders made by the court. The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the power to impose a bond was contained in the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988, and that the imposition of a "Griffiths Bond" was not within the purview of this Act. The Director of Public Prosecutions sought orders in the nature of certiorari quashing the decisions of the District Court, a declaration that the only power to impose a bond in sentencing a prisoner was that to be found in section 36 of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988, and an order in the nature of mandamus directing the District Court of South Australia to sentence the defendants forthwith.

The court considered the legal issues and concluded that the judge's orders were not imposing "common law bonds" but rather were adjournments of the cases, which the judge had statutory power to do. The court found that the judge was not imposing any recognizance other than that necessarily involved in an order continuing bail. While the court had some misgivings about such action, it noted that it had had statutory endorsement in both the United Kingdom and New South Wales. The applications for the orders in terms of paragraphs 2 and 4 of each summons were dismissed. The court will hear counsel further as to whether an order should be made in terms of paragraph 3.