In the case of R v Fallon (a pseudonym) [2017] NSWSC 1796, heard on December 13, 2017, before Justice Campbell, the court issued a significant decision concerning the applicant’s release application and the suppression of the applicant’s identity. The decision, delivered on December 19, 2017, pertains to bail, suppression orders, and the evaluation of the strength of the Crown’s case against the applicant.



The applicant in this case faced charges related to drug supply and other offenses, including the supply of significant quantities of cocaine and dealing with the proceeds of crime. The charges were not presented in chronological order. The trial was scheduled to commence on August 13, 2018, in the Sydney District Court, with an estimated duration of 25 days.


Suppression Orders:

Justice Campbell ordered the suppression of the applicant’s identity until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings against him. This suppression was deemed necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of criminal justice, despite the importance of the public interest in open justice. The applicant was referred to by the pseudonym “Fallon.”


History of Release Applications:

There had been a history of multiple release applications in this case. There were seven previous bail applications, three in the Local Court (all denied), and four in the Supreme Court.


Justice Campbell noted that the applicant had been granted conditional bail by Harrison J, but this decision was later reversed by the Court of Criminal Appeal.


Grounds for a Further Release Application:

The primary ground for the applicant’s request for another release application was that additional material information relevant to the grant of bail had become available. Specifically, the applicant sought to rely on the transcript of Witness X’s evidence at contested committal proceedings. The argument was that this transcript revealed weaknesses in the Crown’s case, which had not been adequately considered in previous bail applications.


Consideration of s 74 Bail Act 2013 (NSW):

Section 74 of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) restricts second and subsequent bail applications to those supported by proper grounds. It aims to limit the number of bail applications and prevent frivolous or vexatious attempts. In this case, it was the third application to the Supreme Court and the eighth overall.


Justice Campbell highlighted the importance of interpreting s 74 within the context of the Act. The Act also includes provisions that mandate the timing of bail applications and allow courts to refuse bail applications deemed frivolous or lacking substance.


The term “material information relevant to the grant of bail” used in s 74(3)(b) and s 74(4)(a) is defined as information that, if presented earlier, might have led to a different outcome in previous bail applications. It is an objective legal standard that requires an assessment of whether the additional information could have made a difference to the previous results.


In this case, the material information relied upon was the evidence from Witness X. The applicant argued that this evidence demonstrated weaknesses in the Crown’s case, thereby affecting the strength of the prosecution’s case, which is a key factor in bail considerations.


Justice Campbell observed that the bail court’s ability to assess the strength of the Crown’s case is limited. It involves a summary evaluation of available evidence, which can be impressionistic. The reliability of individual witnesses is typically not assessed, as that is reserved for the trial. In the context of bail applications, the strength of the Crown’s case is considered based on available materials and assumptions that favor the prosecution’s case.


Justice Campbell concluded that the additional evidence provided, mainly the transcript of Witness X’s testimony, did not constitute material information in the sense required by s 74. The additional information did not demonstrate that the earlier bail applications would have had different outcomes, as the strength of the Crown’s case remained substantial. The judge emphasized that Witness X’s potential shortcomings as a witness did not invalidate the assumption of truthfulness and reliability of the informant’s statements.



Justice Campbell’s decision to dismiss the applicant’s release application highlights the complexities and challenges inherent in navigating the criminal justice system, particularly in cases involving bail applications and the interpretation of specific legal provisions like s 74 of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW). The dismissal underlines the importance of presenting compelling and materially significant evidence to support bail applications, especially when attempting to challenge the strength of the Crown’s case.


This case underscores the substantial benefits of engaging an experienced criminal law firm. A skilled legal team, with expertise in criminal law and a deep understanding of the nuances of bail applications, can be instrumental in effectively presenting an applicant’s case. Their knowledge and experience in dealing with similar cases, familiarity with the legal standards required for successful bail applications, and their ability to scrutinize and present evidence, can make a significant difference in the outcome.


An experienced criminal law firm would have the capability to critically assess the strength of the Crown’s case and identify potential weaknesses. They can provide strategic advice on the timing and substance of bail applications, ensuring that all relevant material information is meticulously presented and argued. Furthermore, their ability to navigate complex legal arguments and to interpret and apply legal provisions in the client’s favor can be pivotal in securing favorable outcomes.


In complex cases like R v Fallon, where multiple factors such as the nature of the charges, the strength of the prosecution’s case, and the proper application of legal standards come into play, the role of a proficient criminal law firm becomes even more crucial. Their expertise not only aids in the legal process but also provides the defendant with a more robust representation, enhancing the chances of a favorable legal resolution.


Therefore, while the applicant’s release application was ultimately unsuccessful in this instance, it serves as a compelling illustration of the value of expert legal representation in complex criminal cases. The involvement of an experienced criminal law firm could potentially alter the course of such proceedings, providing the applicant with the best possible chance of a successful outcome.