In the matter of an Application for Bail by Dhaimat (No 1)

In the matter of an application for bail by Dhaimat (No 1), the respondent, Dhaimat, sought bail, which was opposed by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue before the court was whether there was sufficient evidence to justify the revocation of the respondent's bail. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was reliable and substantial enough to warrant the revocation of bail, considering the non-binding nature of the rules of evidence in such proceedings.

The court found that although it was not strictly bound by the rules of evidence in bail applications, it should still adhere to sound principles to ensure the reliability of assertions made. The prosecution's evidence, which included assertions made by a McKenzie’s friend, was deemed insufficient to establish a clear flight risk or other grounds for revocation. The court considered the imminence of the hearing dates but concluded that this factor alone was not enough to justify the revocation of bail. The court emphasised the importance of having a solid basis for any assertions made during such proceedings.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the application to revoke the respondent's bail. The orders of the court included the refusal of the Director of Public Prosecutions' application to revoke the bail of Dhaimat.