The Bail Act 1980 (QLD)

The Bail Act works in order to protect the community and prevent future offences, to protect individuals whom might be at risk if the accused is granted bail and to ensure the integrity of the justice system by ensuring the accused appear in court while avoiding the possible interference of evidence and witnesses. (Australian Government, 2017) The aim of the Act is to maintain the assumptions of innocence and liberty, while also taking the publics opinions and interests into consideration. Although granting and refusing of bail follows certain provisions and constraints, in recent years’ stakeholders have not been provided with suitable outcomes in relation to the process of bail. The Bail Act 1980 (QLD), is effective, however suggestions could

be made to make the Bail Act more effective. Recommendations need to be applied for the future of the Bail Act such as; creating a risk assessment to assess and evaluate individuals to determine if they are likely to fail to appear at following court hearings, and allow courts to have complete access to the mental health records of offenders for the purposes of bail and pre-trial release.
The Bail Act has been amended several times, however a key issue that keeps occurring within the Act is the balance of individual rights including the victims and community’s safety.

Innocent before proven guilty is a human right in Australia, however the justice system ignores this, as the Bail Act enables defendants to be placed in custody before proven guilty. According to the Victim’s Human Rights Act 1996 (NSW), the Victims Right Act is essential for any ‘balancing rights’ queries. This Act allows victims to mention important and sensitive topics such as domestic violence, this law is effectively used as evidence in order to guarantee human rights. The Act focuses mainly on protecting the victims, however the main focus should be aimed to stop criminals in the first place. If the Bail Act and police powers were used effectively, this would prevent the need for Victims’ Rights Act. (Jorge Branco, 2017) States that a 52-year-old man murdered his wife before taking his own life. The man was placed in custody until his bail application was approved by police. Due to his ‘fragile mental state’ it was suggested that he was an ‘unreasonable risk of causing self-harm or harm towards others’. Once he was granted bail he was placed in a hotel in Brisbane CBD, with a restraining order against his wife. However, this did not stop him from murdering her. The law needs to be amended, that any offender granted bail should have to participate in a risk assessment conducted at the

court, and re-assessment of risk is regularly conducted throughout the defendant’s bail time.
The Bail Act 1980 (Qld) enables the court to refuse bail if there is an unacceptable risk that the defendant is released on bail, but will fail to appear and surrender into custody; or while released on bail commit an offence; or endanger the safety or welfare of a person who is claimed to be a victim of the offence, or interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, whether for the defendant or anyone else (Bail Act 1980, 2003).

According to statistics from the Queensland Criminal Law System over 40% of defendants were granted bail in 2014, and 28% were placed on custody, before proven guilty (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2014). These are the risks that the society is exposed to when a defendant is granted bail. Those at risk include the witness and government, whilst the stakeholders will be delayed in the process of prosecuting the court case against the defendant. There is a risk that the policies of judicially resolving the matters of the criminal liability and imposing criminal sanctions on those found liable, will be discouraged by the defendant’s release. There is risk that there is a possibility that the defendant will commit crimes while on bail. (Herladsun, 2013) States that Bayley raped and murdered Jill Meagher. Although convicted as a sexual predator previously, Bayley should have been refused bail. The Bail Act was insufficient, because he was endangering the safety of another person, however the court ignored this. Because he was a

serial offender there was a likelihood that Bayley would commit offences while on bail, it was evident that the defendant had intent to commit other offences and should have been refused bail. The proposal of amending the law, would evaluate individuals to determine if they are likely to fail to appear at court hearings, this will ensure the safety of stakeholders.
Bail verdicts are very crucial as it implicates the question of whether or not to deprive a person of their freedom by keeping them in custody. Those that are granted bail gain advantages such as; having easy access to lawyers allowing them to prepare for trial, able to remain in their community which allows them to be able to commit to family and maintain work, whilst waiting for trial. To further the effectiveness of the Bail Act, the law should allow the justice system to gain full access to mental health records of the defendant for the purposes of bail and pre-trial release. This would assist the court in making strong decisions as to whether the defendant will offend again, or they will not cause any reasonable risk to the stakeholders. Because mental health is always used as an excuse for the defendant, having the offender’s mental health records on offer, will help determine if the offences are pre-meditated. This will allow the criminal law system to make a precise decision if they defendant should be granted or refused bail.
The Bail Act 1980 (QLD), is effective, however by adding the amendments listed above will help the Criminal Justice System, make precise decisions as to whether offenders should be granted or refused bail. The amendments will reduce the number of incidents that occur once an offender is granted bail. By including these amendments, the Bail Act 1980 (QLD) will provide suitable outcomes for all stakeholders.