New South Wales Police Force v C Davis

He is currently on an ICO of two years duration for other offending I need not go into. On his arrest, the applicant was taken before the Local Court under s 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW). Her Honour Judge Viney sitting here at Port Macquarie refused bail and ordered that the applicant be committed to a place of security being the cells at the courthouse and that he be brought before me sitting in the Supreme Court, being the Court out of which the bench warrant was issued in accordance with the terms of the warrant. Under s 312(2A), the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) applies to a person in Mr Davis' position as if he was accused of an offence and the proceedings before the Court out of which the bench warrant was issued were proceedings for that offence.

I understood Mr Costello, the Crown Prosecutor who appears for the prosecution, to draw an analogy between failing to appear when required by subpoena and failing to appear under s 79 of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) which is an offence carrying a maximum penalty not exceeding three years imprisonment.

The bail concern which I have to address is the concern that Mr Davis will not appear when required if I grant him conditional bail. It is true to say having regard to the bail report, that quite apart from his non-appearance in response to the subpoena Mr Davis has an extensive record of not appearing when otherwise required necessitating the issuing of bench warrants. That is a matter of concern.

It is a matter of concern because it is apparent from the statement that he willingly made to police in relation to their investigation of the murder charge against the accused that, if not an eye witness to the stabbing of Mr Vale, he resided next door to the relevant premises and was on the scene in the immediate aftermath of the fatal stabbing. He was obviously, from his statement, in a position to provide what might be significant evidence one way or the other in relation to the prosecution or defence of the charge before me.

It is obvious that if he fails to answer bail, the trial may have to be adjourned or otherwise delayed, given that this is a judge-alone trial, while he is re-apprehended.

There are other matters of concern for this application given that his partner, who gave evidence before me on 7 July 2026, swore that they were no longer in a relationship and that Mr Davis was her ex-partner. Police who have been looking to secure his attendance leading up to my orders on Friday and since, have spoken to his partner frequently, who has insisted that Mr Davis was not present in circumstances where in all probability he may well have been. I note that over the last 24 hours, Ms Walker repeated those assurances to the officer-in-charge, but declined to let him inspect the premises, pleading inconvenience to her little children. The circumstances raise questions the sincerity of her explanation and therefore the suitability of her premises as a bail residence.

However, given that Mr Davis has co-operated with the investigation in the past, the explanation given by Mr Slowgrove that he is functionally illiterate and did not appreciate the significance of the subpoena forwarded to him by Detective Senior Constable Smith and the consideration that he did hand himself in, I am satisfied that the risk of non-appearance is not unacceptable, although, as with all grants of bail, there is some risk.

I propose to grant conditional bail. I repeat what I said in the course of my discussion with Mr Slowgrove that the matter really concerns the question of whether or not charges will be laid consequent upon his non-compliance with the subpoena. That is a matter which it is not appropriate for me to deal with now, but will be considered after he appears in accordance with his bail acknowledgement and gives evidence. I will consider any application made at that time.

I observe that as he is on an ICO and, quite apart from the inherent seriousness of non-compliance with bail, any non-compliance with the bail I grant may have a consequential effect in terms of his condition to be of good behaviour while on his ICO, which may lead to the order being revoked by administrative action of the parole authority and him being committed to custody to serve out the balance of the sentence of imprisonment, which underpins the ICO.

For these reasons, I grant conditional bail.

[CONDITIONS REDACTED]