Unusually stringent bail conditions requiring mandatory residence at a supervised drug rehabilitation facility, combined with severe restrictions on movement and association, can be sufficient to show cause under s 4(4) of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic), particularly where there will be substantial delay before trial. The fact that rehabilitation arrangements were put in place by lawyers rather than the applicant, or that the proposal is motivated by avoiding incarceration, should not be given significant weight against the applicant. The question whether s 4(4) requires a one-step or two-step process remains unresolved and is left for a five-member bench.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 44 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 44 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.