Charged with attempted possession of 15kg of methamphetamine, an offence carrying life imprisonment, our client was refused bail before the Supreme Court granted it after about six months in custody.
Result at a glance
- Charge: Attempted possession of a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug (methamphetamine), Division 307 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). Maximum penalty: life imprisonment.
- Quantity: 15kg of methamphetamine, about 20 times the commercial quantity threshold of 750g.
- Custody: Approximately 6 months in custody following arrest. Bail initially refused.
- Court: Bail application heard in the Supreme Court of NSW (initial proceedings at Downing Centre Local Court).
- Outcome: Bail granted by the Supreme Court of NSW.
The charge
Our client was arrested and charged with attempted possession of a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug (methamphetamine) under Division 307 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). Bail was refused, and our client remained in custody for approximately six months.
The exposure
A commercial quantity of methamphetamine under Division 307 is 750 grams. The alleged quantity here was 15kg, about 20 times that threshold. The maximum penalty for attempted possession of a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug is life imprisonment. A six-month period on remand affects employment, housing and family arrangements, and it limits the accused's ability to prepare a defence, which is why bail was the immediate priority.
The issue: a show-cause charge
Under s16A of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW), a drug offence of this nature is a show-cause matter: the burden sits on the accused to satisfy the court that continued detention is not justified, a higher hurdle than the standard test where the prosecution must show an unacceptable risk. For show-cause offences carrying life imprisonment, bail applications fail far more often than they succeed. A court weighs the seriousness of the charge, the strength of the prosecution case, the potential sentence, and the risk of flight. With 15kg of methamphetamine and a maximum of life, those factors pointed toward continued detention.
What we argued
The prosecution brief was substantial, with surveillance material, phone intercepts, financial records and forensic analysis running to thousands of pages. Read in full, the case was not as strong as the charge suggested: there were weaknesses in the material going to the core of the allegations against our client. The strength of the prosecution case is one of the factors a court considers under s18 of the Bail Act 2013, and where the evidence is weaker than the charge implies, that bears directly on the show-cause assessment.
When the Local Court refused bail, the Supreme Court was the next avenue: it has jurisdiction to hear bail applications in the most serious matters, including where lower courts have refused. Supreme Court bail on an importation charge carrying life imprisonment is rare, because the show-cause burden is heavy. The application turned on what the brief actually showed: on a fair reading of the prosecution material, the case had specific, identifiable problems that went to the show-cause test.
The result
After a contested hearing, the Supreme Court granted bail, and our client was released after approximately six months in custody. This case study relates to the bail outcome; the substantive charges remained before the court at the time bail was granted. Release allowed our client to prepare a defence with full access to lawyers and materials, rather than through prison visits and monitored calls.
Why the result mattered
Bail on a show-cause importation charge carrying life is uncommon, and it turned on the strength-of-case factor under s18: the brief, read in full, had identifiable problems that the first bail hearing had not engaged with. That is what separated this application from one resting on character and conditions alone.
What this case shows
A show-cause charge does not make bail impossible. The strength of the prosecution case is a statutory bail factor, and a brief that runs to thousands of pages has to be read in full before that factor can be argued. Where lower courts refuse bail, the Supreme Court can still hear the application. How we approach serious bail and drug matters is set out on our bail applications and drug charges pages.
Refused bail on a serious drug charge?
When someone is in custody on drug importation or serious drug charges, the brief of evidence may tell a different story to the one presented at the first bail hearing, but it has to be read properly. The difference between bail refused and bail granted often comes down to what the brief actually establishes. Call JBP Law on 1800 527 529 or book a case review. We're based in Parramatta and handle serious drug matters in courts across Sydney and NSW.
This case study is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Each criminal matter depends on its own facts, evidence, and personal circumstances. Past outcomes are not indicative of future results.
Charged? Find out where you stand
Confidential. No obligation. Same day response.
