Ms Jane Mulcahy:

I want to add something to that point about complainant evidence. It is already being delivered in High Court bail hearings. Where there is a claim concerning potential witness intimidation, it is not uncommon for the victim to give evidence. There is jurisprudence saying this is the preferred approach. Where at all possible, rather than admitting hearsay evidence, it can be admitted but that is not the preference of the court. If it can be demonstrated that the victim is fearful for their life, the courts will admit hearsay evidence in that case to bolster the contention that further intimidation is likely under the O'Callaghan rules.

Senator Bacik asked about head 10 and the statement in subhead (2) that, "An applicant for bail shall be granted bail except where, having regard to the provisions of this Act, the court does not consider it to be a case in which bail should be allowed." In principle, there is nothing immediately wrong with the wording there except its place in the Act itself. That is a general, overarching provision. It should have a prime place in the general provisions in order that judges and the prosecution are under no illusion that bail should be the default position.

Unless the objections and the evidence supporting them are such that they support refusal of bail, then one does not necessarily need to phrase it in rights language, saying that the applicant has a right to bail but everyone should understand that bail is the default position.