A refusal of bail does not necessarily prevent a further application. However, after the Local Court has
heard and refused a release application for an offence, section 74 of the Bail Act 2013(NSW) (the Bail Act)
restricts another application to that court for the same offence. The applicant must establish a recognised
ground for the court to hear the matter again.

A properly prepared application identifies the information that was missing or the circumstances that have
changed, explains their significance, and supports the proposed release with credible evidence

When can another application be heard

Section 74(3) of the Bail Act provides four grounds:
i.The accused was not legally represented on the previous application and now has legal representation.
ii.Material information relevant to bail will be presented which was not presented on the previous
application.
iii.Circumstances relevant to bail have changed since the previous application was made.
iv.The accused is a child, and the previous application was made on the first appearance for the offence.
These are alternative grounds. Police refusing bail does not, by itself, make the first Local Court release
application a repeat application under section 74 of the Bail Act.

What counts as material information ?

Information must have substance and relevance to the bail decision. A new document is not enough simply
because it carries a recent date. Its contents must add something significant to the court’s assessment.
The wording of section 74(3)(b) of the Bail Act focuses on information not previously presented. That
information may have existed earlier. The application should identify what the earlier court had before it,
what is now being presented, and why the additional information matters.

For example, a confirmed residential rehabilitation placement may provide an option that was absent from
the first application. In Decision restricted [2025] NSWSC 14 at [2], the Supreme Court accepted a new
residential placement under both the material-information and changed-circumstances grounds. Bail was
granted subject to conditions.

What counts as changed circumstances?

A relevant change might include a trial date being vacated, a later hearing date establishing substantially
longer time on remand, deterioration in health, or a newly available treatment or accommodation arrangement. Each change must be assessed in the context of the particular case.

Delay requires more than counting the extra days since bail was refused. In Kitanovski v R [2024] NSWSC
732 (Kitanovski) at [30], the Court assessed the overall significance of a later trial date establishing approximately three years on remand. The practical effect on the accused matters.

Several developments may also operate together. In R v Feda [2025] NSWSC 638 (Feda) at [17], additional
information satisfied section 74 in combination, even though individual matters might not have done so alone. Bail was nevertheless refused on the merits.

What should be presented to the Local Court

The documents needed depend on the ground relied upon. A lawyer preparing the application should
ordinarily obtain:
 The earlier bail order and reasons, together with the transcript and earlier application material where
available.
 A clear account of the statutory ground relied upon and a comparison of the previous and current
position.
 Statements, affidavits, reports or other reliable documents establishing the additional information or
change.
 Confirmation of proposed accommodation, including the address, who lives there and the consent of
the person providing it.
 For rehabilitation, an acceptance letter, bed availability, programme requirements, supervision
arrangements and a plan if admission fails or the accused leaves.
 For medical grounds, appropriate clinical evidence, treatment records, the urgency of investigation or
care, and arrangements proposed in the community.
 A workable set of proposed bail conditions addressing the concerns identified in the earlier decision.

The list is a practical preparation guide, not a requirement to produce every document in every case.

Although strict evidence rules do not apply to ordinary bail proceedings, the court must be able to regard
the information as credible or trustworthy.

In Debono v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2025] NSWSC 327 (Debono) at [2]-[4], specialist
evidence about possible lymphoma and delayed investigation overcame section 74. That decision illustrates
the value of medical evidence explaining the actual need for investigation and the circumstances of its
delay.

What will usually be insufficient?

Changing lawyers, repeating an earlier argument more forcefully, or placing the same facts in a new
affidavit does not itself establish a ground under section 74. The exception for obtaining legal representation applies where the accused was previously unrepresented.

An increased surety also needs an explanation of its relevance. In R v Luo [2023] NSWLC 5 (Luo) at [25]
[32], the Local Court found that medical information and an increase in proposed surety from $100,000 to
$500,000 did not satisfy the material-information requirement. The medical needs could be managed in
custody, and the increased security did not sufficiently address the reasons for the earlier refusal.
The Court of Criminal Appeal likewise rejected substantially repeated arguments presented as revised
appeal grounds in Mehajer v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2025] NSWCCA 79 (Mahajer)at [17]
[18] and [25]-[27]. The substance of the additional material must be identified.

Permission to apply again does not guarantee bail

Section 74 of the Bail Act concerns whether another application can be heard. Once that hurdle is passed,
the court must still apply the relevant bail tests. Where the show cause requirement applies, the accused
must show why detention is not justified. Other special statutory tests may also apply.

If the applicable preliminary test is satisfied, or no such test applies, the court assesses any unacceptable
risk of failing to appear, committing a serious offence, endangering safety, or interfering with witnesses or
evidence. Proposed conditions must be lawful, workable and directed to the identified concerns. A
confirmed address or treatment programme does not automatically overcome every risk.

What if a higher court has already considered bail

A return to the Local Court after a Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeal bail decision requires
separate attention to section 69. The Local Court’s power is restricted, including a requirement for special
facts or circumstances justifying the hearing in the circumstances specified by that section. The stage of the
criminal proceedings must also be checked.

Preparing the application properly

At Pannu Lawyers, we assess the reasons for the previous refusal, identify the available legal ground and
the evidence needed to support it, and prepare a release proposal addressing the court’s concerns. Early
advice can help determine whether a further Local Court application is available or whether another court
should be approached.

Contact Pannu Lawyers for advice about a repeat bail application and the material required for your
circumstances.

This article provides general information about NSW law. Advice on an individual matter depends on its charges, bail , history and evidence