Practice Note – Supreme Court
As we move into the last weeks of the court year and are looking forward to some well-earned rest alongside time with family and friends, practitioners may be forgiven for failing to fully appreciate the positive impact which the publication by the Chief Justice of Practice Direction No 6 of 2025 – Bail Applications will have on the civil applications jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in Brisbane, not to mention bail and dangerous prisoner applications. You may download it here.
The problem which PD 6 of 2025 addresses
The Applications jurisdiction was, and remains, intended for short civil applications including interlocutory applications in proceedings on foot as well as applications for final relief. The jurisdiction is a vital component of the access to justice afforded by the Court to parties to civil proceedings. Two judges are of course listed to sit in Applications every sitting week in Brisbane and cases with estimates of up to two hours are routinely accommodated.
Traditionally, applications brought under the Bail Act 1980 (Qld) (which are also civil applications) have been listed to be heard in the Applications list. However, the number of such applications has steadily increased since 2014 and increased significantly in the last three or so years. For example, there was an average of three hearings each day in July 2022 but this rose to between eight and nine last December (always the busiest month for bail applications) and was still sitting at between five and six daily hearings in the last reporting period (September 2025). In addition, cases arising under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) – i.e. new applications, reviews of continuing detention orders and contravention proceedings – are listed on Monday and, where necessary, Tuesday in the Civil list but they are heard by one of the two judges sitting in Applications.
The upsurge in work from these two sources has meant the Court’s ability to list civil applications for hearing in Brisbane within a relatively short timeframe has been substantially depleted, so something needed to be done. That something is embodied in the restructuring to be trialled for six months under PD 6 of 2025. It is hoped this will go a long way towards freeing up the Applications list by reducing delays and enhancing the capacity of the judges sitting in that jurisdiction to entertain cases attended by real urgency.
The solution
From the first sitting week of 2026 until at least the mid-Year vacation, all bail and dangerous prisoner cases filed in the Brisbane Registry will be taken out of the Applications list and heard separately by a judge who is allocated each sitting week to do so. The Applications jurisdiction will stand alone; two judges will continue to sit in that list and will be exclusively dedicated to short civil applications in the sense earlier explained. Dangerous prisoner cases are already the subject of a list which is case managed by a judge – see Practice Direction No 6 of 2012 – Applications made under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act – but bail applications will now be case managed under their own list. PD 6 of 2025 also introduces several new measures to promote case resolution and hearing efficiency for bail applications.
The Bail/DPSOA pilot
The new regime for bail applications to be trialled under PD 6 of 2025 was in part the subject of a Criminal Practice Seminar held in the Banco Court on the evening of 25 November 2025. In a wonderful response, almost 300 practitioners attended either in-person or online. The seminar was also recorded and may be viewed on the Court’s YouTube site here. What follows is a brief overview of the main features of the pilot.
PD 6 of 2025 commenced on 19 November 2025 and will apply to applications coming before the Court on and from 27 January 2026. Until that time, bail applications will continue to be heard in the Applications list. The Registry will transition to the new regime from Monday, 19 January 2026.
The pilot is limited to applications filed in the Brisbane Registry. A dedicated Bail List Manager has been assigned to manage the list under the supervision of a Bail List Judge (who will be me for at least the first six months of the pilot). The Bail List Judge will exercise oversight over the new Bail List and is also responsible for dealing with various issues as they arise (such as whether to grant an expedited hearing). The judge allocated to sit each week will conduct both reviews and substantive hearings.
A central feature of the pilot is mandatory review hearings. Once an application is accepted for filing, it will not be allocated court time for a substantive hearing until it has first been reviewed by a judge. Review hearings will be brief, usually allocated no more than ten minutes, and remote appearances may be approved. The primary goal is the timely and efficient disposition of applications. The judge reviewing an application will be interested to ensure all necessary evidence and material has been filed by the applicant, to manage the provision of response material by the respondent, to refine the issues for the substantive hearing and to make necessary directions for an efficient hearing and determination. The judge may also finally dispose of the application by Order if that is possible (e.g., where the parties have arrived at an agreed position). Applications will generally be listed for a review hearing not less than five clear business days after filing. There is an exception for urgent applications; these will continue to be accommodated in an expedited way.
A key expectation under PD 6 of 2025 is that practitioners will be expected to file complete, ready-to-proceed material to accompany any application. This must include evidence regarding several essential matters which are specified in the PD, an outline of argument (not to exceed six pages) and (where the applicant is legally represented) a draft Order containing the conditions proposed for release on bail. Service on the respondent should be effected without delay, ideally on the same day, but in no case less than two clear days before the review hearing. The PD also regulates the content of material to be filed in response to an application, and by when.
PD 6 of 2025 also makes it clear that practitioners should act responsibly before engaging the processes of the court. For example, where an application for bail has been refused in the Magistrates Court but, subsequently, the applicant asserts there has been a material change in circumstances, it is expected that any new application will be made in the Magistrates Court. Otherwise, and conformably with the obligations of parties to a proceeding under r 5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), each party to a bail application impliedly undertakes to the court and to the other parties to proceed in an expeditious way.
PD 6 of 2025 emphasises the front-loading of evidence followed by judge-led case management. It places a high premium on the completeness of filed material. Practitioners must treat the initial filing not as a preliminary step, but as a comprehensive presentation of the material going in support of the application so that it is ready for immediate review. Failure to meet these requirements will inevitably lead to unnecessary directions, adjournments, and delays in the substantive hearing of the application. Meeting them should have the opposite effect.
