Towers v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)

In Towers v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW), the appellant, Towers, sought bail from the Supreme Court, having been previously remanded in custody. The primary issue before the court was the appropriateness of an application for bail directly to the Supreme Court without an initial application to a lower court. Additionally, the court had to consider whether bail could be granted with a condition to surrender in three months’ time and subsequently apply for the bail to be revoked. This application was novel and raised questions about the power of the court to grant bail on such terms.

The court examined the established principles governing bail applications, including the principle that bail applications should generally be made to the court with original jurisdiction. It was noted that bail applications directly to the Supreme Court are not common and should only be considered in exceptional circumstances. Furthermore, the court scrutinised the nature of the application for bail, which was predicated on the need for a medico-legal examination for a personal injuries claim in a civil matter unrelated to the current criminal proceedings. The court had to determine whether this purpose alone justified a departure from the usual procedure. The court found that the application did not meet the threshold for exceptional circumstances, and the proposed terms of bail were not within the court's power to grant.

The court concluded that the application for bail did not satisfy the criteria for exceptional circumstances, and thus, the application should have been made to a lower court. Additionally, the proposed condition of surrendering in three months’ time and subsequently applying for the bail to be revoked was not within the court's power to grant. The court held that the application was an abuse of process and refused the bail application. No further orders were made beyond the refusal of bail.