Citation: LT v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2025] NSWSC 1288
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 9 September 2025
Judge: Hamill J
Background
The applicant, LT, is a 16-year-old child who has been in the care of the Minister since 2019. She faces trial alongside three co-accused for a serious offence. On 2 September 2025, Hamill J granted her release application over the opposition of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
A central difficulty at the original bail hearing was that no accommodation had been arranged for LT prior to the application being determined. The Youth Justice report prepared for the hearing acknowledged this gap but included an assurance from the Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) and Life Without Barriers that emergency placement could be organised within 24 hours of bail being granted.
Relying on that assurance, the court imposed an accommodation requirement as a pre-release condition under s 28 of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW), meaning LT could not be physically released until suitable accommodation was secured. The matter returned multiple times over the following week as accommodation remained unorganised, before finally being resolved on 9 September 2025.
Legal Issues
- Whether bail could be granted to a child despite the absence of a confirmed accommodation address at the time of the hearing
- The correct operation of the accommodation requirement under s 28 of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW), including its status as a pre-release condition
- Whether s 28(4) requires the court to relist the matter at least every two days (as a minimum floor), or whether it merely sets a ceiling permitting longer intervals
- The scope of the court's power under s 28(5) to direct government officers to provide information about accommodation arrangements
Decision
Hamill J granted bail on 2 September 2025 and imposed an accommodation requirement as a pre-release condition under s 28 of the Bail Act, directing that LT live where directed by DCJ or Life Without Barriers. A home detention condition was also imposed, permitting LT to leave accommodation only for emergency medical treatment or when accompanied by an approved support worker.
When accommodation had still not been arranged by 4 September 2025, an officer of DCJ attended via audio-visual link and answered the court's questions under s 28(5). The court was satisfied that genuine good-faith efforts were being made, but the 24-hour assurance had not been met. The matter was relisted again in accordance with s 28(4).
On the question of timing, Hamill J considered the Director's suggestion that the matter could return after an interval longer than two days. The court concluded that s 28(4) is clear: the matter must be relisted at least every two days, and this operates as a minimum requirement rather than a maximum. The legislative history, including the 2013 Second Reading Speech and the NSW Law Reform Commission Report 133, confirmed the provision's purpose: to prevent a child from being detained for an unduly lengthy period after bail has been granted in principle.
By 9 September 2025, Life Without Barriers confirmed that accommodation was prepared and staff were in place to receive LT. The court varied the home detention condition to reflect the practicalities of supervised placement and confirmed the remaining conditions made on 2 September 2025.
Orders Made
- The home detention condition imposed on 2 September 2025 was deleted and replaced with the following: LT must at all times when away from the required address be in the company of a caseworker from the service managing her residence, a caseworker from Youth Justice, a caseworker from DCJ, or an adult approved in writing by DCJ, unless obtaining emergency medical treatment.
- All other orders made on 2 September 2025, including the remaining bail conditions, were confirmed.
Key Takeaways
- Under s 28 of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW), a court may grant bail to a child and impose an accommodation requirement as a pre-release condition where no fixed address exists at the time of the hearing, provided there is a sufficient basis to expect suitable accommodation will be arranged.
- Section 28(4) operates as a floor, not a ceiling: the court must relist the matter at least every two days until the accommodation requirement is satisfied, and a longer interval is not permitted under the provision.
- The court's power under s 28(5) to direct government officers to attend and provide information is an active tool to ensure that bail orders are given practical effect and are not frustrated by administrative delay.
- Hamill J confirmed that the "chicken and egg" problem presented by unknown accommodation addresses in children's bail matters is the precise mischief s 28 was enacted to resolve, drawing on the Law Reform Commission's 2012 recommendation that courts not be forced to simply refuse bail in such circumstances.
- The judgment illustrates the collaborative function s 28 anticipates between the court, Youth Justice, and government accommodation providers when a child in the Minister's care seeks release on bail.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Bail Act 2013 (NSW), ss 19, 28, 28(4), 28(5)
Secondary Materials:
- NSW Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 1 May 2013 (Second Reading Speech)
- NSW Law Reform Commission, Report 133: Bail (April 2012)
Cases: No cases were cited in the judgment.