Summary
A challenge alleging that bail was granted through arbitrary exercise of discretion had to be considered on that basis, rather than only as a request to cancel bail for later misconduct. Although the complainant invoked section 439(2), his grounds attacked the original grant and omission of relevant material. The High Court orders were set aside and the applications remitted for fresh consideration; the Supreme Court did not itself decide whether bail should be withdrawn.
Issues
- Whether the complainant’s application challenged the legality of the original bail grant or merely subsequent breach of conditions.
Held
- Courts must exercise bail discretion judicially on the relevant facts. The substance of the application’s grounds showed a challenge to the original exercise of discretion despite its invocation of the cancellation provision. (¶ 9)
- Cancellation for supervening circumstances ordinarily concerns matters such as witness threats, evidence tampering or absconding. A challenge to an illegally or arbitrarily granted bail order instead examines the propriety of the original discretionary decision; these considerations differ. (¶ 10)
- The High Court treated the application only as cancellation based on breach and therefore failed to examine the pleaded challenge to the bail grant. A fresh determination under the correct approach was necessary. (¶ 10–11)
Result
Appeals allowed; both High Court orders set aside. Applications remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration as challenges to the original grant of bail, in accordance with law.