MG (a pseudonym) v The King - [2025] VSCA 167

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2025 0129

MG (A PSEUDONYM)	Appellant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST, BOYCE and KAYE JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 July 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	8 July 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 167
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	ReMG [2025] VSC 384 (Tinney J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Bail – Appeal against refusal of bail – Appellant charged with aggravated burglary (two charges), theft, theft of motor vehicle and possession of methylamphetamine – Offences committed while appellant on seven grants of bail and subject to seven separate sets of charges – Appellant 17 year old First Nations person of Yorta Yorta, Kurnai, Gunditjmara and Monero peoples – Appellant of extremely low intellect – History of physical and sexual abuse – Judge found exceptional circumstances existed which justified grant of bail – Whether judge erred in finding that there was an unacceptable risk that the appellant would commit a Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 offence or otherwise endanger the safety of any person if granted bail – No error established – Appeal dismissed.

Bail Act 1977, ss 1B, 3A, 3AAA, 3B, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E, considered – Disability Act 2006, referred to.

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; HA (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2021] VSCA 64, referred to.

---

Counsel
Appellant:		Mr DA Dann KC, with Ms C Marcs and Ms F Fox
Respondent:		Mr DD Gurvich KC, with Mr L Carter
Solicitors
Appellant:	Kurnai Legal Practice
Respondent:	Victoria Police

PRIEST JA
BOYCE JA
KAYE JA:

The appellant was arrested on 4 June 2025 on two charges of aggravated burglary, and one charge each of theft, theft from a motor vehicle, and possession of methylamphetamine. The offences were alleged to have been committed by the appellant on 4 June 2025. On the following day, 5 June 2025, an application for bail on his behalf was made to the Latrobe Valley Children’s Court. On 12 June 2025, the magistrate who heard the application refused to grant bail, on the ground that if the appellant were released on bail, he would be an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety and welfare of another person and of failing to surrender into custody, in accordance with the conditions of bail.
On 13 June 2025, the appellant applied to a judge of the Trial Division of the Court for bail. As the appellant was charged with committing Schedule 2 offences (aggravated burglary) while on bail for such an offence, the judge was required to refuse bail, unless the appellant demonstrated that exceptional circumstances existed that justified the grant of bail.[1] It was common ground, and the judge accepted, that such circumstances existed. However, his Honour was satisfied that, if the appellant were released on bail, there would be an unacceptable risk that he would commit a Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 offence while on bail, or otherwise endanger the safety or welfare of another person.[2]…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading MG (a pseudonym) v The King

Details

AGLC: MG (a pseudonym) v The King [2025] VSCA 167
Case: [2025] VSCA 167
Decision Date: 8 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal by MG against the refusal of bail by a single judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria. MG, a pseudonym, is a 17-year-old First Nations person of Yorta Yorta, Kurnai, Gunditjmara and Monero peoples, charged with aggravated burglary (two charges), theft, theft of a motor vehicle, and possession of methylamphetamine. The appeal centred on the refusal of bail under the Bail Act 1977, given the appellant's history of physical and sexual abuse, extremely low intellect, and the fact that the current offences were committed while MG was on seven grants of bail and subject to seven separate sets of charges.

The court had to decide whether the judge had erred in finding that there was an unacceptable risk that MG would commit a Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 offence or otherwise endanger the safety of any person if granted bail. The appeal hinged on whether the judge's assessment of the risk of offending while on bail was correct, considering the appellant's background and the nature of the current charges. The court also considered the Disability Act 2006 in its evaluation.

The court found that the judge had not erred in finding that there was an unacceptable risk that MG would commit a serious offence or endanger the safety of any person if granted bail. The court emphasised the need for a high threshold to be met to overturn a bail decision, particularly in cases where the decision was based on the safety of the community. The court considered the appellant's history of offending while on bail, his current charges, and the risk he posed to the community. The court concluded that the judge had correctly weighed the relevant factors and that the appeal did not establish any error. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders