Markovic v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2024] NSWCCA 251

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Markovic v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2024] NSWCCA 251 Hearing dates: 13 December 2024 Date of orders: 20 December 2024 Decision date: 20 December 2024 Before: Davies J at [1] Yehia J at [1] R A Hulme AJ at [1] Decision: Variation made to daily reporting hours. Variation application otherwise dismissed. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – bail – application to vary bail by deleting all bail conditions – where bail was granted in the Supreme Court and subsequently varied in the Local Court – Court had jurisdiction to hear the application where the bail decision in the Supreme Court remained operative – application determined on merits Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013 (NSW), ss 4(1), 8 16A, 17, 18, 19, 20A, 50, 61, 67(1) 68, 69, 77, 78 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 319, 249K(1)(a) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Duro Markovic (Applicant) Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: In person (Applicant) J Styles (Respondent)

Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) File Number(s): 2024/410443 Publication restriction: Nil

HEADNOTE [This headnote is not part of the judgment] The applicant is due to stand trial in the District Court for serious indictable offences contrary to the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). He was granted bail in the Supreme Court and has brought an application to this Court to vary bail by revoking all existing bail conditions. The Crown contended that the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the application on the basis that the bail decision made in the Supreme Court was superseded by a subsequent decision in the Local Court to continue and vary the applicant's bail. The Court held that it did have jurisdiction to hear the application pursuant to s 67(1)(e) of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW). The Local Court had not made a "bail decision" as defined in the Act, only a decision to vary the bail conditions originally imposed by the Supreme Court. When assessing the application on its merits and considering the bail concerns posed, the Court determined that there was no case for removing any of the existing bail conditions and that there should only be an amendment of the hours for daily reporting. The bail variation application was otherwise dismissed.