ByLawyers News and Updates

Magistrates’ Court – VIC

by

Two important new practice directions apply in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria from 10 February 2025.

  1. Practice Direction No. 1 of 2025 governs practice and modes of appearance, in person or online, in proceedings across the criminal and family violence divisions of the Magistrates’ Court. It revokes Practice Direction No. 6 of 2022.
  2. Practice Direction No. 2 of 2025 governs practices in the civil division of the Magistrates’ Court. It revokes 51 previous practice directions.

The following are the key points of each.

Magistrates’ Court criminal and family violence jurisdiction

Practice Direction No. 1 of 2025 sets out the procedure for all appearances, online or in person, except a first remand hearing which is covered by Practice Direction 1 of 2024.

In general, online appearances by clients and practitioners are available, encouraged, and in many cases required. However, physical appearances are also possible, mainly by request, and in some cases required.

The practice direction sets out detailed arrangements for all types of appearances, including:

  • accused on bail or summons;
  • bail applications and other hearings with the accused in custody;
  • contest mention hearings, committal mentions, special mentions, and applications, and matters in Judicial Registrar lists;
  • contested hearings and committal hearings;
  • specialist courts and programs;
  • intervention orders – applications and hearings; and
  • filing materials with the court.

Represented accused and their lawyers are to appear in person or online as provided for in the practice direction, unless the court directs otherwise.

If a represented accused appears in person, their lawyer must also appear in person, unless otherwise directed by the court.

If a practitioner seeks to appear in a mode contrary to that set out in the practice direction, they must apply to do so by contacting the relevant court registry at least 7 days before the date.

When appearing online, it is the practitioner’s responsibility to ensure they and their client have audio-visual capability from an appropriate private location, and their online appearance must not cause delay or interrupt the court.

Magistrates’ Court civil jurisdiction

Practice Direction No. 2 of 2025 applies to all civil proceedings including the WorkCover Division, Industrial Division, and Federal Jurisdiction matters. It excludes matters arising under the Family Violence Protection Act 2008, the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010, and Industrial Division criminal proceedings.

The practice note covers the following for general civil matters:

  • overview and purpose;
  • definitions;
  • jurisdiction;
  • self-represented litigants;
  • issuing proceedings, filing documents and corresponding with the court;
  • attending the court;
  • consent orders;
  • appropriate dispute resolution;
  • applications in open court and directions hearings;
  • call overs for contested matters and open court applications;
  • contested hearings; and
  • inspecting subpoenaed documents.

Specific directions in the WorkCover Division include:

  • medical panel referrals;
  • inspection of medical and other records;
  • subpoenas relating to confidential communications; and
  • dependents’ compensation.

Specific directions in the Industrial Division include:

  • support for self-represented litigants;
  • filing documents;
  • pre-hearing conferences; and
  • contested matters.

Specific directions in the Federal jurisdiction concern the commencement of proceedings.

Appendix A to the practice direction lists the 51 previous Magistrates’ Court practice directions that are revoked.

Publication updates

The commentary and hyperlinks in the following By Lawyers Magistrates’ Court (VIC) guides have been updated accordingly:

Bail amendments – VIC

by

The latest raft of bail amendments have effect from 24 March 2024.

Changes to the Bail Act 1977 under the Bail Amendment Act 2023 and Bail Amendment Regulations 2024 include:

Second bail application now permitted

The amendments allow an accused person to make a second legally-represented bail application before a court without having to establish new facts or circumstances. This addresses the issue of lawyers being reluctant to represent an accused person on a bail application at the first possible opportunity because of the concern it will exclude them from making a better-prepared application a bit later, which has contributed to a high number of short-duration remands.

Changes of terminology and defined terms

These bail amendments include changes in terminology:

  • from surety and persons offering a surety, to bail guarantee and bail guarantors; and
  • from undertaking to bail undertaking, which accords with a slight amendment to the definition of an undertaking in s 3, so that it means a bail undertaking given under s 5(1) to surrender into custody at the time and place specified for the next appearance, rather than undertaking more generally under s 5 or otherwise.

Refinements to the unacceptable risk test

Under the current test, a person can be remanded in custody if there is a perceived risk of even minor reoffending. To address this, the amendments refine the unacceptable risk test so that an accused person cannot be refused bail on specified minor offences unless they have a terrorism record and have previously had their bail for the same offences revoked. The offences to which this provision applies are any under the Summary Offences Act 1966 except those listed in a new Schedule 3 to the Bail Act, relating to violent and sexual offences. Accused persons released on bail for these offences can still be subject to strict bail conditions.

Additional surrounding circumstances

When considering the surrounding circumstances under s 3AAA of the Bail Act in the context of determining bail, the bail decision-maker must take into account, if relevant, several new factors in addition to those already listed in the section, being:

  • whether, if the accused is found guilty, it is likely they would be sentenced to a term of imprisonment and, if so, that the time they would spend on remand if bail is refused would exceed the term of imprisonment;
  • whether the accused was on remand for another offence or was at large awaiting sentence for another offence; and
  • any special vulnerability of the accused, including being an Aboriginal person, being a child, experiencing ill health including mental illness, or having a disability.

Aboriginal people

Section 3A of the Bail Act provides a list of non-exhaustive considerations that must be taken into account when making a bail determination concerning an Aboriginal person. The section has been amended to give greater guidance to bail decision-makers, who will now be required to consider:

  • systemic factors that have resulted, and continue to result in the over-representation of Aboriginal people in the criminal justice system and remand population, and the increased risks of Aboriginal people in custody;
  • personal circumstances that may make an Aboriginal person particularly vulnerable in custody, may be a causal factor for offending behaviour, or may be disrupted by being remanded -such as disability, trauma, family violence, involvement with child protection, housing insecurity, and caring responsibilities;
  • the importance of maintaining protective factors that play a significant role in rehabilitation, such as connection to culture, kinship, family, Elders, country and community; and
  • any other cultural obligations.

Children

These bail amendments update the child-specific considerations in the Act limit the applicability of the step 1 exceptional circumstances test and the step 1 compelling reason test to children charged with a small number of very serious offences, or with a record or risk of terrorist activities. In addition to the current considerations in s 3B of the Bail Act, bail decision-makers will need consider the need to impose on the child the minimum intervention required in the circumstances, with remand of the child being a last resort

Review

A new s 32C of the Bail Act provides that the Attorney-General must conduct a review of the operation of these bail amendments no later than 2 years after their commencement.

Publication updates

The By Lawyers Criminal Magistrates’ Court guide has been updated accordingly.

Intervention orders – VIC

by

Following a recent Supreme Court decision, a declaration of truth is not sufficient evidence on which a court can make personal safety intervention orders.

Section 38 of the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010 provides that an application for an interim order must be supported by oral evidence or an affidavit, unless the orders are by consent or the requirement is waived.

Under s 38(1A) the court may waive the requirement that the application be supported by oral evidence or an affidavit if the applicant is a police officer and the application is made by electronic communication:

  • provided the court has considered whether it is practicable to obtain oral evidence or an affidavit before making the interim order; or
  • the application is made before 9 a.m. or after 5 p.m. on a weekday or on a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday, and it was certified by the police officer in accordance with s 13(2).

As a COVID-19 response in 2022, the Magistrates’ Court introduced a declaration of truth form as part of the online application process for intervention orders.

In Myers v Satheeskumar & Ors (Judicial Review) [2024] VSC 12 the applicant challenged the validity of an interim intervention order on the basis that it was not supported by oral evidence or an affidavit, there being no consent and no waiver. The Supreme Court agreed with the applicant, finding that a declaration of truth is not the same as an affidavit and cannot ground an application for interim orders. In doing so, the the presiding judge noted:

I have concluded that the interim PSIOs are invalid, in spite of the public inconvenience and safety issues entailed by this conclusion. I am conscious that this conclusion could cast doubt on the validity of other interim PSIOs granted in similar circumstances. It may be a matter of urgent public concern if other interim PSIOs are subject to doubt by reason of any systematic defect in the manner they have been granted. It is unclear to me whether the approach of the Magistrates’ Court to this case is widespread. However that may be, any perceived solution must be left to the legislature, not the Court.

It is likely that the Magistrates’ Court will soon amend their form and online application to require an affidavit to be filed. There may also be a legislative response. However, until that happens, an application for an interim order cannot be supported by a declaration of truth, and unless a waiver applies the applicant will need to either give evidence or file an affidavit before the court can make any interim orders.

The commentary in the By Lawyers Intervention Orders (VIC) publication has been updated accordingly, and will be updated again if there are further developments.

First remand hearing – VIC

by

New procedures apply to the first remand hearing for criminal matters in the Magistrates’ Court from 8 January, 2024.

A first remand hearing is when an accused in custody is initially brought before the court. Under Practice Direction no. 1 of 2024, the accused is required to attend in person unless the court has directed under s 42MAA(1) of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958 that they can appear online.

An application under s 42MAA(1) for the accused to appear online can be made by a police officer, the prosecutor, or the accused’s lawyer.

The application must include:

  • a statement as to how an online appearance is consistent with the interests of justice;
  • a statement either that the accused consents to appearing online or that exceptional circumstances apply, in which case they must be set out;
  • whether the accused has received legal advice;
  • whether there are facilities to enable the accused to communicate with their lawyer before and during the hearing;
  • whether the accused intends to apply for bail;
  • whether the accused requires an interpreter; and
  • whether the accused identifies as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander

Lawyers must also appear in person at the first remand hearing. Exceptions to this requirement apply if the court has directed that the client can appear online, or the client is Aboriginal and the lawyer’s appearance would assist the court considering the issues in s 3A of the Bail Act1977, but the lawyer cannot appear in person, or the court has directed otherwise. If an exception applies the lawyer can attend online.

If appearing online, it is the practitioner’s responsibility to ensure they have audio-visual capability from an appropriate, private location and their online appearance must not cause delay or interrupt the court.

The By Lawyers Criminal Magistrates Court guide has been updated accordingly, including with the new form of application.

 

 

Intervention orders – VIC

by

Appeals against intervention orders made by magistrates are no longer considered de novo hearings, following a recent Supreme Court case.

Previously, appeals to the County Court under both the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010 and the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 were conducted as hearings de novo.  That is, the County Court conducted the trial of the application for an intervention order afresh and gave a decision based on the evidence before it. This meant the parties had to give their evidence and be cross-examined again.

In AAA v County Court of Victoria [2023] VSC 13 the Supreme Court held that an appeal to the County Court against an intervention order, or a refusal to make an order, is not an appeal de novo. It is a broad appeal by rehearing that allows for new evidence. It is not a hearing in which the applicant begins again with the magistrate’s decision being disregarded. The parties may adduce new evidence on appeal, but are not required to.  The County Court determines the appeal based on both the evidence at first instance and any new evidence before it.  The court’s task on appeal is to identify factual, legal, or discretionary error in light of all of the evidence before the court, including any new evidence.

Whilst the focus is on the identification of error, the error may be a factual one. As the County Court reconsiders the application, the error may be that the magistrate made erroneous findings of fact on the evidence available, or reached an erroneous conclusion on the ultimate question of whether the statutory criteria for making the order are satisfied.  Further, as the County Court determines the appeal at the time of the appeal, and new evidence may be adduced, it is not necessary to establish that the magistrate made an error based on the evidence before them at the time. It is open to the County Court to find error even if, had it been limited to the evidence before the magistrate, it would have reached the same conclusion as the magistrate.

The decision suggests that the conduct of final hearings in intervention order matters in the Magistrates’ Court will now be open to close examination and scrutiny on appeal.

The commentary in the By Lawyers Intervention Order (VIC) guide has been updated accordingly.

Magistrates’ Court appearances – VIC

by

All Magistrates’ Court appearances and counter services from 12 September 2022 will be subject to the arrangements set out in Practice Direction No 6 of 2022.

The practice direction applies to both criminal and civil matters, including intervention orders and specialist courts and programs.

COVID recovery arrangements made permanent

Essentially the temporary COVID recovery arrangements previously in place under Practice Direction No. 3 of 2022 have been made permanent, with that practice direction revoked.

In general, remote appearances by clients and practitioners are available, encouraged, and in some cases required. However, physical appearances are also possible, mainly by request, and in some cases they are required.

The new practice direction sets out detailed arrangements for all types of Magistrates’ Court appearances, including:

Criminal matters

  • accused on bail or summons;
  • bail applications and other hearings with the accused in custody;
  • criminal mentions and applications;
  • specialist courts and programs;

Intervention Orders

  • applications;
  • hearings;

Civil matters

  • applications, directions hearings, pre-hearing conferences, early neutral evaluations and judicial resolution conferences are all to be conducted online, unless otherwise directed by the Court;
  • final hearings may be online or in person at the court’s direction.

For online appearances it is the practitioner’s responsibility to ensure that they and their client are able to join the online hearing with audio visual capability.

Magistrates’ Court publication updates

The following By Lawyers Victorian publications have been updated accordingly:

  • Magistrates’ Court – Criminal
  • Magistrates’ Court – Traffic offences
  • Intervention orders
  • Magistrates’ Court Civil – Acting for the plaintiff
  • Magistrates’ Court Civil – Acting for the Defendant
  • Dealing with COVID-19 legal issues

Disclosure certificates – VIC

by

A requirement for prosecution Disclosure certificates has been introduced for criminal matters.

The new s 41A of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 requires the informant, or any other officer who prepared a full brief, to complete a Disclosure certificate and file it with the registry within 7 days of the brief being served. This certificate must be provided to the DPP, if they are conducting the matter, and served on the defence.

Disclosure certificates are required to set out anything that is not included in the full brief because it is subject to a claim for privilege, public interest immunity or other statutory immunity or restriction, and the nature of any such claim.

Sections 41-48 of the Criminal Procedure Act set out the ongoing disclosure requirements on the prosecution. The informant, usually a police officer, also has a general and ongoing duty of disclosure to the Director of Public Prosecutions where that office is conducting the prosecution. The informant must provide to the DPP any information, document or thing that is in the possession of, or known by, the informant that is relevant to the alleged offence, subject to any claims for statutory privilege or public interest immunity: s 415A Criminal Procedure Act 2009.

Disclosure certificates apply also to matters in the indictable stream that proceed by way of a hand-up brief.

The commentary in the By Lawyers Criminal – Magistrates’ Court (VIC) publication has been updated accordingly.

See the By Lawyers  101 Subpoena Answers publication for information about public interest immunity, statutory immunity, and other statutory restrictions.

Criminal procedure – VIC

by

Criminal procedure amendments enacted by the Justice Legislation Amendment (Criminal Procedure and Other Matters) Act 2022 have commenced. Further amendments are pending.

Amendments include:

Prosecution disclosure obligations

Section 41 Criminal Procedure Act 2009 sets out what must be provided in a full brief.  This includes any information, document, or thing on which the prosecution intends to rely at the hearing. The section has been amended to require the prosecution to now include in the brief any information relevant to the credibility of a prosecution witness, including their criminal record if any.

The informant, usually a police officer, also has an ongoing duty of disclosure to the Director of Public Prosecutions where that office is conducting the prosecution. The informant must provide to the DPP any information, document, or thing that is in the possession of, or known by, the informant that is relevant to the alleged offence, subject to any claims for statutory privilege or public interest immunity.

An amendment yet to commence requires detailed disclosure certificates to be prepared by the prosecution to ensure compliance with these disclosure requirements. There are associated tweaks to the pre-trial procedure to accommodate them. These amendments are awaiting proclamation, but have a default commencement date of 1 October 2022.

Remote evidence

The criminal procedure amendments introduce an obligation on the court to direct that the evidence of a witness be given remotely if the witness is a complainant in a proceeding that relates to an offence that constitutes family violence within the meaning of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008. This applies if closed-circuit television or other facilities that enable communication between the courtroom and another place are available and it is practicable to do so.

Appeals

Where the Magistrates’ Court in any given matter is constituted by the Chief Magistrate who is a dual commission holder, meaning also a Supreme Court judge, appeals are now to the Court of Appeal.

Intervention Orders

Declarations of truth are now available for applicants commencing applications for personal safety intervention orders. This is in addition to oaths, affirmations, and affidavits. Declarations of truth were already available for family violence applications.

Under both Acts, special rules apply for the cross-examination of affected family members and children. The amendments have effectively made remote evidence the default position for protected witnesses, which includes children and close family members of the accused. See s 69 (1A) of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 and ss 49 and 52 of the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010.

Publication updates

These changes have been reflected as required in the By Lawyers Magistrates’ Court – Criminal publication. When the additional amendments commence our publications will be further updated.

New rules for IVOs – VIC

by

There are new rules for IVOs in the Magistrates’ Court. The Magistrates’ Court (Personal Safety Intervention Orders) Rules 2021 commenced on 29 August 2021.

Intervention orders are made in the Magistrates’ Court under either the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 or the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010.

The Magistrates’ Court (Personal Safety Intervention Orders) Rules 2021 and the Magistrates’ Court (Family Violence Protection) Rules 2018 provide for the practice and procedure in all proceedings under the respective Acts, including service, orders, subpoenas, affidavits and hearings. The two sets of rules are largely uniform and therefore procedure under both Acts is essentially the same.

The new rules for IVOs revoke and replace these previous rules:

  • Magistrates’ Court (Family Violence Protection) Rules 2008;
  • Magistrates’ Court (Family Violence Protection Rules) (Amendment No. 1) Rules 2011;
  • Magistrates’ Court (Vexatious Proceedings Amendments) Rules 2014;
  • Magistrates’ Court (Family Violence Protection) Amendment Rules 2017;
  • Magistrates’ Court (Family Violence Protection) Amendment Rules 2018.

The By Lawyers Intervention orders commentary has been updated with links to the new rules. The specialist Intervention orders guide is part of the Criminal – Magistrates Court publication.

Criminal Magistrates’ Court – VIC

by

The By Lawyers Criminal Magistrates’ Court publication has been reviewed and enhanced. Improvements following from this review include:

  • The matter plan and commentary have been revised and re-ordered to better reflect the flow of the criminal Magistrates’ Court processes.
  • New and amended commentary headings for improved searchability.
  • The summary of the 2018 bail reforms has been incorporated into the general commentary as those provisions are now entrenched.
  • The commentary on taking instructions in criminal matters has been expanded.
  • The commentary on the preliminary issues which may require practitioners’ attention before the first court appearance, or before a plea is entered, has been enhanced.
  • Commencement of charges is now dealt with in more detail, including notices to appear and the consequently different process which applies compared to a charge and summons, or a warrant.
  • The importance of identifying whether the charge is summary or indictable has been highlighted and discussion of the different processes which apply to each stream has been enhanced.
  • Discussion of the process for charges in the indictable stream has been augmented with new headings added, including the Filing hearing, The hand-up brief, Committal mention, Applying for summary jurisdiction, Pleading guilty at the committal mention and Listing a committal hearing.

Practitioners are reminded that the Criminal Magistrates’ Court publication now also includes the By Lawyers guide to Commonwealth Offences, which covers all aspects of dealing with Commonwealth offences in state courts.

This review is part of the continuing commitment of By Lawyers to updating and enhancing our publications to help our subscribers enjoy practice more.

Connect with us