//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe gives general legal information, not legal advice. For the authoritative text, check the official register of the law's own jurisdiction, such as the Federal Register of Legislation for Commonwealth laws.
[2026] ACTSC 109
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of the ACT
2026-04-22
Taylor J
Original judgment source is linked above.
Source: the ACT Courts (www.courts.act.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: DPP v Budd Citation: [2026] ACTSC 109 Hearing Date: 22 April 2026 Decision Date: 22 April 2026 Reasons Date: 24 April 2026 Before: Taylor J Decision: (1) The order made to continue the accused’s bail is revoked. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – BAIL – review of decision to make bail order – relevant jurisdiction to make bail order – whether the s 19A of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) criteria are established – failure to establish a relevant risk – substantial risk – power to make a bail order – no basis to require the accused to be subject to bail – order made to continue bail revoked Legislation Cited: Bail Act 1992 (ACT), ss 19, 19A, 43A, 57AA Cases Cited: In the Matter of an Application for Bail by Jeremy Scott Campbell [2009] ACTSC 138 Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions Christopher R Budd (Accused/Applicant) Representation: Counsel M Dyason (DPP) M Haesler (Accused/Applicant) Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Hugo Law Group (Accused/Applicant) File Number: SCC 47 of 2026 TAYLOR J: REVISED EX-TEMPORE REASONS Introduction
The applicant is accused of serious sexual offences, the detail of which is unnecessary to go into for the purposes of this application. He has entered pleas of not guilty.
The prosecution against him was commenced by way of summons which required the accused to appear in the ACT Magistrates Court on 2 September 2025.
A magistrate committed him to take his trial in this court on 13 February 2026. The magistrate endorsed the charge sheet with a notation placing him on bail with a condition that he advise the Registrar of this court of any change to his residential address. The order with respect to bail was not pronounced at the time the matter was committed by the magistrate for trial and no submission or application with respect to bail was made by either party.
Bail was subsequently continued when the matter appeared in the Supreme Court Registrar’s directions list on 25 February 2026 and again when the accused appeared for arraignment on 21 April 2026 with the question raised by this application put over to be dealt with before me the very next day.
The applicant applies for a review of the decision to make a bail order with respect to him pursuant to s 43A of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT). The applicant contends that this court (and indeed the Magistrates Court) had no jurisdiction to make a bail order with respect to him. This was not drawn to the court’s attention when the decision was made to place him on bail and then to continue it: s 43A(2)(b) of the Bail Act. The transcript of the committal on 13 February 2026 revealed that because the order with respect to bail was not pronounced the parties were not on notice that any order with respect to bail had been made. The making of a bail order was only drawn to the accused’s attention when he received paperwork from the court after the date of committal.
On 22 April 2026 when the matter came before me, I ordered that the order continuing bail be revoked and indicated that I would provide reasons. These are those reasons.
The prosecution accepted the position adopted by Refshauge J in In the Matter of an Application for Bail by Jeremy Scott Campbell [2009] ACTSC 138 when his Honour stated at [19] that s 57AA of the Bail Act extinguished any inherent jurisdiction of this court to make orders with respect to bail. Section 57AA of the Bail Act states that “any inherent power of the Supreme Court to grant bail is abolished”.
It was also accepted that because of s 57AA, s 19A of the Bail Act dictates the circumstances in which a person who appears before a court to answer a summons and is not already in custody, can be made subject to a bail order.
Section 19A of the Bail Act relevantly provides: (1) This section applies if, at any time— (a) an accused person appears before a court to answer a summons; and (b) the person is not already in custody; and (c) either— (i) the person was served with the summons while serving a sentence of imprisonment; or (ii) the court is satisfied, on fresh evidence or information that was unavailable when the person was served, that a relevant risk applies in the proceeding; and (d) the court adjourns or postpones the hearing of the proceeding begun by the summons. (2) The accused person is, on appearing before the court, taken to be in the custody of the court but only for the purpose of— (a) making an order granting bail to the person; and (b) applying provisions under this Act in relation to the grant of bail. Examples—provisions in relation to the grant of bail • s 24 (Conditions of bail) • s 28 (Undertakings to appear) (3) In this section: appears includes appears by audio link or audiovisual link. audio link—see the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991, section 16 (1). audiovisual link—see the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991, dictionary. relevant risk, in a proceeding, means a substantial risk the accused person in the proceeding will— (a) fail to appear in court in relation to the offence; or (b) commit another offence; or (c) interfere with evidence in the proceeding; or (d) harass or interfere with a person who may be required to give evidence in the proceeding in relation to the offence. summons includes a court attendance notice under the Magistrates Court Act 1930, section 41B.
The accused appears before this court in answer to a summons and he is not already in custody. Accordingly, s 19A of the Bail Act requires a specific set of circumstances to exist or be satisfied in order that a person in the position of the accused be the subject of a bail order (as defined in s 19 of the Bail Act). The dictionary to the Bail Act defines a grant of bail under s 22 as including a continuation of bail.
It was accepted that s 19A(1)(c)(i) of the Bail Act does not apply in that the accused was not served with the summons while serving a sentence of imprisonment.
This leaves s 19A(1)(c)(ii) of the Bail Act as the only basis upon which the accused could be the subject of a bail order.
The prosecution accepted that the accused has at all times attended court in answer to the summons. There was no evidence or information relied upon specific to the accused said to demonstrate a relevant risk that was not available when he was served with the summons.
The prosecutor contended that the event of the matter being committed to this court for trial necessarily raised a ‘risk’ that the administration of justice may be frustrated if the accused is not obliged by a bail undertaking to appear and/or to notify the registrar of any change to his residential address. The matter being committed for trial was said to be ‘information’ not available when he was served with a summons.
The prosecutor fairly conceded that this was a general risk which might apply to any accused and not one which arose from any conduct alleged against the accused or from any information provided by the informant about the accused which was not available when he was served with a summons.
Of course, a failure by the accused to attend future court dates would undoubtedly frustrate the administration of justice particularly at a time when court resources to deal with serious criminal trials are under significant pressure. But a relevant risk is defined as a ‘substantial’ risk. I am not satisfied that the mere existence of the possibility that the accused may not attend court for future court dates, which is as high as it could be put in this case on the material before me, rises to the height of a substantial risk. The prosecutor acknowledged that there was nothing else to which he could point to establish a relevant (substantial) risk.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the circumstances which must exist before the accused could be the subject of a bail order pursuant to s 19A of the Bail Act have been established. That section providing the only power for the accused to be made subject to a bail order by this court, there is no basis to require the accused to be subject to bail.
The bail order made with respect to the accused should be revoked. Orders
For those reasons on 22 April 2026, I made the following order: (1) The order made to place the accused on bail and to continue bail is revoked.
I certify that the preceding nineteen [19] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of her Honour Justice Taylor. Associate: P Beohm Date: 24 April 2026
DPP
Budd