Revisiting the grounds for new Bail application:
Gold Coast-based lawyer, Darren Mahony, said there were two broad grounds for the new bail application:
i) that the brief of evidence does not substantiate or support all of the claims made by the prosecution during the (first) bail application;
ii) that evidence, not referred to on the initial bail application, exists inconsistent with the Crown case and/or relevant to the defense.
Prisoners denied bail in the Supreme Court have to show evidence of a change of circumstances in order to make a second bail application.
So what could constitute evidence of a change of circumstances?
They may claim evidence which was inconsistent with the Crown case was excluded from the first Bail application. If it was established that evidence was inconsistent and excluded would that be enough to claim 'a change of circumstances'? They would need to demonstrate that it was inconsistent, and I imagine, that it was excluded, but that may not be enough as this application may fail on the basis on i) above. It seems the Defense and GBC have examined the 'brief of evidence' and now claim it does not substantiate 'all' claims by the Prosecution for opposing Bail in the first application. They would need to demonstrate that the 'brief of evidence' does not 'substantiate' all claims by the Prosecution. But what about most claims by the Prosecution? Would this constitute 'a change in circumstances'? IMHO posing a flight risk could now be more serious and the possibility of interfering with witnesses still exists as in the first Bail application. So what constitutes a 'change of circumstances' to warrant and risk release of the accused on Bail? I imagine that the Prosecution has much evidence beyond the brief given to the Defense