R v Hancock (No 2)

The application for bail by Daniel Thomas Hancock was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Hancock sought bail following the cancellation of a drug and alcohol treatment order, which was revoked due to a missed appointment. The applicant's circumstances included a recent surgery and concerns about the risk of harm in custody, particularly in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The prosecution opposed the bail application on various grounds, including the seriousness of the offences and the risk of reoffending.

The court needed to decide whether the applicant's circumstances warranted the granting of bail, considering the nature and seriousness of the charges, the risk of reoffending, and the potential harm to the community if bail were granted. The court also had to assess the risk of harm in custody, including the impact of COVID-19, and weigh this against the applicant's right to liberty. Additionally, the court had to consider the impact of the cancelled drug and alcohol treatment order on the applicant's risk profile.

The court found that the seriousness of the offences, including the applicant's criminal history, weighed heavily against the granting of bail. The court also considered the risk of reoffending, which was deemed high due to the applicant's history of non-compliance with court orders. The court found that the risk of harm in custody, including the potential exposure to COVID-19, did not sufficiently outweigh the need to protect the community. The court ultimately decided that the applicant's circumstances did not warrant the granting of bail. The application was dismissed, and the applicant was remanded in custody until the next court appearance.

The court made several orders, including vacating the previous listing and scheduling a new mention for 5 August 2022. The applicant was permitted to appear via audio-visual means at the new mention. Additionally, the applicant was marked as a prisoner at risk, indicating the need for heightened monitoring and support due to his circumstances. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to public health guidelines in the context of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.