Bail and delays
- The accused in DPP v Tang and others were charged with drug trafficking.
- The committal hearings of the accused in DPP v Tang and others commenced six months later, and continued for three months.
- The trial of the accused in DPP v Tang and others was expected to commence approximately eight months after the committal hearings.
- The court decided that the delay of 17 months between being charged and the trial commencing in DPP v Tang and others was a normal delay in Victoriaat that time. The delay therefore did not amount to an exceptional circumstance to justify the release ofthe accused on bail.
- The Covid-19 pandemic contributed to ‘unreasonable delay’ in some cases, but not in others. For instance, Covid-19 delays meant that accused people in custody with histories of medical conditions were particularly vulnerable – these situations could qualify as unreasonable delays.
- Nicholls was able to show “exceptional circumstances”as he had a history of chronic asthma, which constituted a special vulnerability during Covid-19 delays.
- In the case of Diab, the Supreme Court justice held that Covid-19 delays did not constitute exceptional circumstance as the applicant did not have any chronic illness or special vulnerability, and his alleged crimes were of a more violent nature. In the case of the third man, the justice found that Covid-19 delays did establish exceptional circumstance, but the risk posed by the accused could not be mitigated by bail conditions.
