• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

The Court of Appeal, speaking through Winneke ACJ, noted that a jurisdictional point had been raised (reference was made to Fernandez v Director of Public Prosecutions), but the Court was prepared to hear the merits without deciding the jurisdiction question and without full argument on that point [5]. The central substantive legal question was whether "exceptional circumstances" had been demonstrated warranting bail pending the imminent re-trial for murder. The Court reiterated the governing test: bail for persons charged with murder is to be granted only if exceptional circumstances are shown [14]. It added a specific proposition: where a person has already been convicted of murder and is granted a re-trial because of an error of law, the obligation to show exceptional circumstances is heightened [14].

Having considered the appellant's arguments and the circumstances relied upon (lengthy period in custody, prior grant of bail, age, family ties and an asserted low risk of breach), the Court concluded that while those matters were relevant, they did not amount to exceptional circumstances in the circumstances of someone who had already been convicted and remanded for re-trial. The Court was also not satisfied that the Trial Division judge's decision contained an appellable error [17]. As a result, the appeal was dismissed and bail was refused pending the re-trial [23].

Why the court decided this way

The decision rests on two interlocking propositions set out by the Court:

1. The standard for granting bail in murder cases is the existence of "exceptional circumstances" [14]. That is the threshold rule the Court applied.

2. The Court expressed a further, context-specific principle: the obligation to show exceptional circumstances is higher where an applicant has previously been convicted of murder and is seeking bail pending a re-trial ordered because of an appellate error of law [14]. The Court articulated this as an addition to the general exceptional-circumstances test: "that heightens the obligation, in our view, of a person standing trial for a second time to show those exceptional circumstances." The judgment does not elaborate at length on the policy reasons for this proposition, but the statement itself is decisive in the application.

On application of those principles to the facts, the Court treated the factors relied upon by the appellant, nearly three years in custody, prior bail granted at an earlier stage, age, family support and an asserted lack of risk of breach, as relevant but not sufficient to meet the heightened exceptional-circumstances threshold in the particular context of a retrial after conviction [20, 23]. The fact the re-trial was imminent (about a month away) was also noted in the factual context [11]. The Court also considered the argument that the Trial Division judge had committed an appellable error, but stated that it was not satisfied such an error existed; and even if appellable error had been established, the absence of exceptional circumstances would remain dispositive [17].

The Court therefore dismissed the appeal and refused bail.

Before and after state of the law

What the judgment expressly does

• The judgment reiterates a settled proposition applied in this decision: that bail in murder cases requires exceptional circumstances [14]. This is stated as the governing test in this context.

• The decision adds a specific application of that test by declaring that the threshold is heightened where the applicant has already been convicted and faces a retrial due to an appellate error of law [14]. That is the distinctive doctrinal point in the judgment.

What the judgment does not decide or change

• The Court did not decide the jurisdictional point raised (the reference to Fernandez v DPP). It explicitly said it was prepared to entertain the merits without full argument on that jurisdictional point and without deciding it [5]. Therefore the judgment does not create binding authority on the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction to entertain such bail appeals; it leaves that question open.

• The judgment does not set out a detailed list or taxonomy of what circumstances will constitute "exceptional circumstances". Instead it confirms that familiar personal factors (length of custody, previous bail, family support, low risk of breach) are relevant but may not suffice where the heightened threshold applies [20, 23].

Net practical effect

• For practitioners, the judgment is a clear warning that applicants for bail pending re-trial after conviction face a higher hurdle. The Court will scrutinise claimed mitigating factors and may treat even substantial periods in custody and family supports as insufficient to meet the higher standard in that context.

Key passages with plain-English translation

1. "Bail is to be granted to people charged with murder only if exceptional circumstances have been shown." [14]

   • Plain English: For murder charges, you do not get bail just because you ask; you must show something out of the ordinary to justify it.

2. "Where a person has been convicted of murder and given a re-trial on account of error of law, that heightens the obligation, in our view, of a person standing trial for a second time to show those exceptional circumstances." [14]

   • Plain English: If you were already found guilty and you get another trial because of a legal mistake on appeal, you must produce even stronger reasons than usual to get bail while you wait for the new trial.

3. "We are not satisfied that her Honour's order is infected by appellable error; but, whether it is or not, this Court is not satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances warranting the grant of bail pending the re-trial due to be held in December." [17]

   • Plain English: We do not think the judge made a legal mistake you can appeal, and even if there were a mistake, we still think there are not the special circumstances needed to grant bail before the retrial.

4. "All of these matters are, of course, relevant but in our view do not amount to exceptional circumstances, particularly, as we have said, where the appellant has already been convicted and remanded for re-trial." [23]

   • Plain English: The things you pointed to are important but not enough to be considered exceptional, especially given you were already convicted and are awaiting a second trial.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

This judgment is engaged where the following convergent facts exist:

• A defendant is charged with murder and has applied for bail pending trial or re-trial [14].
• The defendant has previously been convicted of murder and obtained a re-trial because of an appellate legal error (i.e. the conviction was set aside on appeal) [11, 14].
• The re-trial is imminent or pending and the defendant seeks bail for that interim period [11].
• The defendant relies on factors such as long periods in custody prior to the retrial, prior grant of bail, personal characteristics, family support and an absence of risk of breach [20, 23].

Under those circumstances, Chang establishes that courts will apply the exceptional-circumstances test strictly and will require more than the ordinary mitigating factors to justify bail.

How later courts have treated it

The judgment itself does not report subsequent treatment by later courts, and the Court of Appeal explicitly did not decide the jurisdictional point that might bear on later appellate practice [5]. Therefore, from the text of this judgment alone, you cannot infer how later courts have or will treat Chang v DPP with respect to (a) the precise content of "exceptional circumstances" in retrial-after-conviction contexts or (b) the Court of Appeal's willingness to entertain such bail appeals where jurisdiction is in doubt. The judgment will, however, be directly persuasive on the substantive point that a retrial after conviction demands a heightened showing of exceptional circumstances.

Still-open questions

Several matters are left unresolved by the judgment and may be the subject of future clarification:

• Jurisdiction: The Court expressly declined to decide whether it had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal in light of authorities such as Fernandez v DPP. That jurisdictional question remains open for another judgment to decide or to develop in later cases [5].

• Definition of "exceptional circumstances": The judgment confirms the label and stresses a heightened requirement in the retrial-after-conviction context, but it does not supply an exhaustive definition or a closed list of what sorts of factors will or will not qualify as exceptional. Practitioners must therefore assess whether particular factual matrices meet the standard and be prepared for careful fact-sensitive argument [14, 23].

• Weight to be given to delay and custody time: The Court noted that nearly three years in custody (despite an earlier grant of bail) was relevant but not sufficient to constitute exceptional circumstances in this case [20, 23]. It remains an open question how prolonged custody will weigh in different fact patterns, for example where the retrial is not imminent or where custody has extended far beyond what was foreseeable.

• Interaction between appellable error and bail disposition: The Court said it was not satisfied there was an appellable error and in any event found no exceptional circumstances. The extent to which an established appellable error (if made out) would affect the exceptional-circumstances assessment is not fully explored.

Practitioners should therefore treat Chang as a strong statement that retrial-after-conviction applicants face a high bar for bail, while recognising that precise boundaries of the test will need further cases to settle the contingent lines.

This analysis is legal information only, not legal advice. I can make mistakes and I am not your lawyer. Before you act on, rely on, or use any of the content above (including any draft or strategy you may derive from it), get a qualified Australian lawyer to check it.