Citation: Godla v Director of Public Prosecutions [2024] NSWCCA 221
Court: NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 27 November 2024
Judges: Hamill J, N Adams J, Sweeney J
Background
The applicant is a self-represented litigant who is registered on the NSW Child Protection Register and faces multiple charges of failing to comply with his obligations under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW). On 9 October 2024, a differently constituted Court of Criminal Appeal granted him bail on four conditions, including requirements to appear at court, reside at a specified address, and comply with the Register.
Five days later, on 14 October 2024, a Local Court judge added a further condition requiring the applicant to report to police once a week. No explanation was provided for that addition.
The applicant then applied to the Court of Criminal Appeal to vary bail further, seeking to have bail dispensed with entirely. He also raised a number of matters outside the court's jurisdiction, including an attempt to revive challenges to his original 2016 conviction and a request that all extant prosecutions under the child protection registration legislation be brought to an end.
Legal Issues
- Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal had jurisdiction to hear appeals from the applicant's original 2016 conviction or from a decision of a District Court judge in 2024
- Whether the Court had power to order that all pending prosecutions under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 be terminated
- Whether bail should be dispensed with entirely under ss 10 and 49 of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW)
- Whether the weekly reporting condition added by the Local Court on 14 October 2024 satisfied the requirements of s 20A of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW), namely that bail conditions be necessary, proportionate, and no more onerous than required to address the bail concern
Decision
The court disposed of the jurisdictional arguments briefly and firmly. It confirmed it has no jurisdiction under the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) to entertain an appeal from the 2016 conviction or from the District Court decision of January 2024. It also confirmed it holds no power to bring all extant child protection prosecutions to an end. Those aspects of the application were declined on that basis.
The main application to dispense with bail entirely was rejected on its merits. The court found the existing conditions were not unduly onerous and were calibrated to address the risk that the applicant might further breach his Register obligations. The remaining court appearances were expected to conclude within weeks or, at most, months.
However, the court did grant partial relief by deleting the weekly reporting condition added by the Local Court. The court observed that, had it considered such a condition necessary and appropriate when it settled the bail conditions on 9 October 2024, it would have imposed one at that time. Nothing in the material before the court explained why the Local Court departed from those recently settled conditions and added a more onerous requirement. Under s 20A of the Bail Act 2013, conditions must be reasonable and proportionate, appropriate to the offence, and no more onerous than necessary to address the relevant bail concern. The reporting condition did not meet that standard in the circumstances.
The court also noted it could have declined to hear the application at all under ss 73 or 74 of the Bail Act, given the limited prospect of success. It elected instead to deal with the application on its merits.
Orders Made
- Bail varied to delete the weekly reporting condition imposed by the Local Court on 14 October 2024
- The application for variation of bail otherwise dismissed
- The Registrar directed to notify the Officer in Charge at Parramatta police and the Registrar of Parramatta Local Court that the reporting condition has been deleted
- The applicant confirmed as required to appear at Downing Centre Local Court on 29 November 2024 and Parramatta Local Court on 9 December 2024, and on such dates and at such places thereafter as required
- The application for a pseudonym declined
Key Takeaways
- The Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed it has no jurisdiction under the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) to hear appeals from Local Court convictions (even via intermediate review decisions) or to make broad orders terminating outstanding prosecutions.
- Under s 20A of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW), bail conditions must be necessary, proportionate, and no more onerous than required to address the identified bail concern. A condition that serves no identifiable risk-mitigating purpose will not satisfy that test.
- Where a lower court adds a more onerous bail condition days after a superior court has carefully settled conditions, the absence of any explanation for that addition weighs against the condition's validity.
- Refusing to dispense with bail is appropriate where the existing conditions are calibrated to address specific risks and the period of bail is expected to be short.
- A court may decline to hear a bail application under ss 73 or 74 of the Bail Act 2013 where it lacks substance or fresh grounds are not established, though the court retains a discretion to determine the application on its merits instead.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Bail Act 2013 (NSW), ss 10, 20A, 49, 73, 74
- Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW)
- Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5, 6
- Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 271A.1
Cases:
No cases were cited in the judgment.