The criminal case against the State of Victoria over alleged COVID-19 hotel quarantine failures could be heard by the end of the year.
Lawyers defending the state in a civil action have revealed plans to have the case heard in the Victorian Supreme Court in an effort to progress the case quickly.
The case is currently before the Victorian County Court after a magistrate determined there was sufficient evidence to proceed with 58 charges over breaches of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
David Neal SC revealed the state would be asking for it to be heard in the Supreme Court on grounds including public interest and a possible earlier hearing date.
"We're doing our very best to expedite the hearing of the matter," he said on Thursday.
He had learned another six-to-eight week trial could be heard in October this year, and hoped the same for the state's case.
The detail was revealed during a hearing in separate civil action against the state.
Businesses in a class action are arguing the state breached a duty to take reasonable care implementing infection prevention procedures at quarantine hotels, resulting in the spread of COVID-19 in the community and a 112-day lockdown.
Lawyers for the state tried to have the case entirely on hold until the criminal case is finalised, but were knocked back by Justice John Dixon in February.
They applied to challenge that ruling on Thursday in Victoria's Court of Appeal, over concerns prosecutors might seize on details in any civil defence they file to assist with the criminal case.
Civil procedure rules require they file a full defence to the claims made against them, including anything which might take the plaintiffs by surprise.
That notion "sends shivers down the spine of a criminal lawyer", Dr Neal said.
He suggested there would be prejudice to the state if they were required to share that defence with others before details of the criminal case against them are finalised.
The state's defence in the civil case was originally due on March 3. Prosecutors are expected to file their case in late-June.
"We do not have to tip our hand to a party who is hostile to our interest prior to hearing what the criminal case is," Dr Neal said.
Michael Borsky KC, representing the class action businesses, said the state had not been ordered to file a defence at any stage, as Dr Neal had suggested.
They have only been asked to confidentially serve a proposed defence.
Justice David Beach suggested the confidentiality order would protect the information, because it would not be accessible or usable by anyone outside Mr Borsky's legal team.
Dr Neal said he wasn't concerned that confidentiality would be breached, but was worried that when witnesses are prepared for the civil case the very small pond of people involved in this case will get polluted.
The judges have reserved their decision.
The criminal case is due to return to the County Court for a directions hearing on Friday.
