Victorian Bail Case Study

1472 Words6 Pages

The Victorian Bail Act 1977 outlines the provisions of bail, Section 4(1) a provides a presumption in favour of granting bail. “Any person accused of an offence and being held in custody in relation to that offence shall be granted bail” (Bail Act 1977 (Vic), s. 4(1)). This means that anyone charged of an offence should be granted bail unless there are circumstances which justify the refusal of bail. Under Section 4(2) there is a presumption against bail for serious offences including serious drug offences and terrorism offences (Bail Act 1977 (Vic), s. 4(2). Since Frank was caught with both drugs and terrorist weapons in his possession, the only way that he could be granted bail is if he proves there were ‘exceptional circumstances’ or show cause of why the bail should be granted (Bail Act 1977 (Vic), s. 4(4). If Frank could prove his innocence by retrieving the identification cards of the individuals who these belonged too then his chances of being granted bail may be increased increased. However, …show more content…

Constable Dan had reasonable grounds to believe that Frank was carrying illegal weapons. The suspicion arose when the sniffer dog took interest in Frank’s backpack. Frank thought that running away would prevent him from being caught, however, constable Dan noticed that Frank was running thus, tackling him to the ground and detaining him until another police officer attended the scene. Although this arrest is not valid in the sense that Frank was not specifically told that he was under arrest, the arrest still occurred because Frank was being detained. Constable Dan then had the power to search Frank’s back pack as his power under Section 3ZH of the crimes Act states; “If a person who has been arrested for an offence is brought to a police station, a constable may: if an ordinary search of the person has not been conducted--conduct an ordinary search of the person” (Crimes Act 1914 (Cth),

Open Document