Arrestees have the right to apply for bail and to be released pending their trial, where circumstances require it. There is a practice of requiring people to verify their addresses prior to bail being granted, and this is implemented in various ways by different magistrates’ courts; from a magistrate refusing to hear a bail application until there is a verified address, to a magistrate hearing the application but holding the decision over until a verifiable address is supplied. This practice is widespread, and unfairly prejudices the homeless and poor, whose addresses are difficult to verify. It also means that their pre-trial incarceration might be lengthier than their sentences. This article will argue that this practice should be subject to the interests of justice criteria, and that its current form does not meet this standard. We will also investigate what this practice might look like if carried out in compliance with the interests of justice criteria. Lastly, this article will argue that this practice in its current form fails to meet rule of law standards. These arguments will be made in the context of the right to equality, and discrimination against those living in poverty. It will be concluded that, in its current form, the practice is unconstitutional.

中文翻译：

---

可能违反宪法吗？坚持在保释聆讯中核实地址

被拘留者有权申请保释，并在情况需要时被释放，等待审判。有一种做法是要求人们在准予保释之前先核实住所，这是由不同的地方法院以各种方式实施的；从拒绝听取保释申请直到有经过验证的地址的地方法官，到听取申请但保留决定直到提供可核实地址的地方法官为止。这种做法十分普遍，不公平地损害了无家可归者和穷人的住所，他们的住址难以核实。这也意味着他们的审前监禁可能比他们的刑期更长。本文将论证，这种做法应服从司法标准的利益，并且其当前形式不符合该标准。我们还将研究如果遵循正义标准的利益，这种做法会是什么样子。最后，本文将争辩说，这种实践目前的形式不符合法治标准。这些论点将在平等权和对生活贫困者的歧视的背景下提出。可以得出结论，以目前的形式，这种做法是违宪的。