Legal Research
Cases
ZT v The King

ZT v The King

Case [2025] NSWCCA 116 8 August 2025

Appeal

Bail

Reasonable Prospects of Success

Arguable Appeal

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: ZT v R [2025] NSWCCA 116
Hearing dates: 20 June 2025
Date of orders: 20 June 2025
Decision date: 08 August 2025
Before: Harrison CJ at CL;
Wright J;
Huggett J
Decision:
Grant bail subject to conditions.

Catchwords:
BAIL – release application – murder – where conviction quashed by Court of Criminal Appeal – unreasonable verdict – Director’s appeal to High Court allowed – matter remitted to Court of Criminal Appeal for determination according to law – offence for which an appeal is pending in Court of Criminal Appeal – whether special or exceptional circumstances exist that justify a decision to grant bail – consideration of the relative strength of the ground of appeal – whether the appeal has reasonable prospects of success – whether the appeal is reasonably arguable – whether bail concerns are capable of amelioration by imposition of conditions

Legislation Cited:
Bail Act 2013 (NSW), ss 18, 22

Cases Cited:
DC v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2024] NSWCCA 235
El Khouli v R [2019] NSWCCA 146
El-Hilli and Melville v R [2015] NSWCCA 146
Fantakis v DPP [2021] NSWCCA 271
Gould v R (Cth) [2021] NSWCCA 27
HT v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2019] NSWCCA 141
Huynh v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2021] NSWCCA 294
Mehajer v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2024] NSWCCA 172
Obeid v R (No 2) [2016] NSWCCA 321
R v Williams [2020] NSWCCA 348
Samandi v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2020] NSWCCA 102
The King v ZT (2025) 99 ALJR 676; [2025] HCA 9
ZT v R [2023] NSWCCA 241

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: ZT (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Coady SC (Applicant)
B Costello (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Nyman Gibson Miralis (Applicant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2025/220695
Publication restriction: Nil.

JUDGMENT

THE COURT: On 9 December 2021, following a 13-day trial, ZT, who was a child at the time of the murder, was convicted in the Supreme Court sitting at Wagga Wagga. He appealed against his conviction to this Court: ZT v R [2023] NSWCCA 241. In those proceedings, Kirk JA and Sweeney J upheld the sole ground of appeal, that ZT’s conviction of murder was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence. Justice Fagan dissented and would have dismissed the appeal. As the majority upheld the single unreasonable verdict ground, a verdict of acquittal was entered by this Court on 29 September 2023. The Crown then appealed to the High Court, which on 2 April 2025, allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of this Court and remitted the matter for determination according to law: The King v ZT (2025) 99 ALJR 676; [2025] HCA 9. The conviction appeal re-hearing is listed for hearing in this Court on 20 August 2025.
On 30 May 2025, ZT filed a release application which we heard on 20 June 2025. The Crown…

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 ZT v The King

Details

AGLC: ZT v The King [2025] NSWCCA 116
Case: [2025] NSWCCA 116
Decision Date: 08 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of ZT v The King, the applicant sought bail from the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicant had been convicted of murder but had successfully appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal, which found the verdict to be unreasonable. The Director of Public Prosecutions subsequently appealed to the High Court, which allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the Court of Criminal Appeal. The applicant now sought bail pending the outcome of the appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The court had to consider whether special or exceptional circumstances existed to justify granting bail. The court noted that bail is not usually granted to an applicant whose appeal against conviction is pending, particularly where the appeal concerns an offence of violence. However, the court must also consider the relative strength of the ground of appeal, whether the appeal has reasonable prospects of success, and whether the appeal is reasonably arguable. Additionally, the court must consider whether the concerns about bail can be ameliorated by imposing appropriate conditions.

The court found that the appeal was reasonably arguable and had reasonable prospects of success, given the Court of Criminal Appeal had found the original verdict to be unreasonable. The court also noted that the applicant had no previous convictions and had demonstrated a willingness to comply with any bail conditions that might be imposed. The court was satisfied that the concerns about bail could be ameliorated by imposing appropriate conditions, including residence, reporting, and curfew conditions. The court ultimately granted the applicant bail, subject to the imposition of conditions.

The final orders of the court were that the applicant be released on bail, subject to a number of conditions, including that the applicant reside at a specified address, report to a police station on a regular basis, and observe a curfew. The applicant was also required to surrender any travel documents and to refrain from contacting certain witnesses. The applicant was further required to pay a bail bond of $50,000.

Orders