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, approximately 30 times the commercial quantity threshold of 500g.
- 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.
Six Months in Custody on a Charge Carrying Life
Our client was arrested and charged with attempted possession of 15kg of methamphetamine. Under Division 307 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), a commercial quantity of methamphetamine is 500 grams. This alleged quantity was 30 times that threshold. The maximum penalty for attempted possession of a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug is life imprisonment.
Bail was refused. Our client remained in custody for approximately six months.
Six months doesn't sound long next to a life sentence. But six months in custody before your matter has even been to trial changes everything outside the prison walls. Employment disappears. Leases lapse. Relationships fracture under the weight of weekly visits through security glass. Children grow. Bills go unpaid. The life you had before the arrest starts to disassemble itself, and you can't do anything about it from inside.
For our client, every day in custody was a day spent waiting for a bail outcome that most people in this position are told is unlikely.
What the Prosecution Had
Drug importation charges at this level are treated by courts as among the most serious offences in Australian criminal law. The alleged quantity alone made this a case the prosecution would resist bail on with everything available to them.
Under s16A of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW), drug offences of this nature are "show cause" matters. That means the burden sits on the accused to convince the court that their continued detention is not justified. This is a higher hurdle than the standard bail test, where the prosecution must show an unacceptable risk. Here, our client had to prove the case for release.
For show cause offences carrying life imprisonment, bail applications fail far more often than they succeed. Courts weigh 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, every one of those factors pointed toward keeping our client locked up.
How We Changed the Outcome
What the Brief Actually Showed
The prosecution brief was substantial. In drug importation cases, the evidence typically includes surveillance material, phone intercepts, financial records, and forensic analysis. The volume of material can run to thousands of pages. It takes serious time to work through it properly.
Once we thoroughly analysed the brief of evidence, the prosecution's case was not as strong as the charges suggested. There were weaknesses in the material that went to the core of the allegations against our client. The strength of the prosecution's case is one of the factors courts consider under s18 of the Bail Act 2013 when determining bail. When the evidence is weaker than the charge implies, that changes the calculus.
Finding those weaknesses required reading every page and testing every assumption the prosecution had built into its case theory. That work doesn't happen in a few days. It takes weeks of careful preparation. But it made the bail application possible.
The Supreme Court Application
When the Local Court refused bail, the Supreme Court became the next avenue. The Supreme Court of NSW has jurisdiction to hear bail applications for the most serious criminal matters, including where lower courts have refused.
Supreme Court bail on drug importation charges carrying life imprisonment is rare. Most applications at this level fail because the show cause burden is so heavy. Courts are understandably cautious about granting bail to someone facing life in prison.
Our application was built on what the brief actually showed, not on character submissions or promises about reporting conditions. The argument was direct: on a fair reading of the prosecution material, the case against our client had specific, identifiable problems. Those problems went to the show cause test. The Court agreed.
After a hard-fought hearing, the Supreme Court granted bail.
The Result
Our client walked out of custody after approximately six months behind bars. From a charge carrying life imprisonment, with bail already refused, to release on Supreme Court bail.
This case study relates to the bail outcome. The substantive charges remained before the court at the time bail was granted. But getting out of custody changed our client's position entirely. Preparing a defence from home, with full access to lawyers and materials, is a fundamentally different proposition from doing it through prison visits and monitored phone calls.
Facing Serious Drug Charges and Refused Bail?
If someone you care about is sitting in custody on drug importation or serious drug charges, the brief of evidence may tell a different story to the one the police presented at the first bail hearing. But someone has to read it properly. The difference between bail refused and bail granted often comes down to preparation and knowing where to look in a prosecution brief that runs to thousands of pages.
Call JBP Law on 1800 527 529 or book a case review to understand where the case stands. 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.
