The High Court has refused all relief sought by David Prescott in a challenge to a District Court judge’s handling of a repeat bail application after his bail was revoked.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered judgment on 31 March 2020. Prescott had asked the High Court to quash the District Court judge’s refusal to entertain his bail application and to declare that a change in circumstances was not a precondition to making a further application. He also sought a declaration that the judge was required to consider the application.
The judgment’s chronology records that Prescott was remanded in custody in December 2019, later granted bail on conditions, and received changes to those conditions in January 2020. He was arrested on 31 January for breaching bail conditions; his bail was subsequently revoked and he was remanded in custody.
At a further bail application on 27 February, the District Court judge said a change in circumstances was needed before the application would be considered, relying on the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in *Roche (aka Dumbrell) v Governor of Cloverhill Prison*. The High Court considered section 28(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1967, which allows a bail application to be renewed at a later District Court appearance or while an accused is in custody awaiting trial. The judge said that provision did not set out the full law governing bail, and that common law remained relevant.
The High Court read the Supreme Court’s *Roche* judgment as stating that an accused may apply for bail without a general limitation, while allowing a judge to require a relevant and appropriately probative change in circumstances where the bail jurisdiction is called on repeatedly. The judge said that such a requirement may be applied, rather than being mandatory in every case, and left the decision to the judge hearing the matter.
Because Prescott had made repeated applications, the District Court was entitled to seek evidence of changed circumstances, the High Court held. It found no legal flaw in the District Court judge’s approach and distinguished an earlier case in which a solicitor had effectively been prevented from making submissions.
The respondent had also raised alternative remedies, res judicata and the form of any legislation amending the common law. The High Court did not address those issues, saying the Supreme Court authority provided a sufficient answer. It refused all relief sought. The judgment does not record a separate order on costs.