Re Alsowafi (Bail Application) - [2025] VSC 162

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2025 0040

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER an application for bail by HUSSAIN ALSOWAFI

HUSSAIN ALSOWAFI	Applicant
v
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Beale J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	31 March 2025
DATE OF RULING:	1 April 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Alsowafi (Bail Application)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 162

---

BAIL APPLICATION — Whether new bail laws apply — Whether exceptional circumstances justifying grant of bail — Whether unacceptable risk of committing further offences, endangering members of the public and interfering with witnesses — Where residential placement at Odyssey House in Benalla available — Where trial dates listed in August and November 2025 — Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 34(24B) — Bail Amendment Act 2025 (Vic) s 10 - Re Pham [2024] VSC 143 — Re Tiburcy [2024] VSC 163.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr R Melasecca	Melasecca Zayler
For the Respondent	Mr Z Petric	Office of Public Prosecutions

Contents

WHETHER NEW BAIL LAWS APPLY

Background
Submissions
Analysis

CHRONOLOGY

EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND UNACCEPTABLE RISK

Background
Evidence

Submissions
Analysis

HIS HONOUR:

This is a bail application by Hussain Alsowafi.

WHETHER NEW BAIL LAWS APPLY

Background

The first issue is whether the new bail laws apply. The Bail Amendment Act 2025 (Vic) commenced operation on 26 March 2025. By s 10 of that Act, s 34 of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) (‘Bail Act’) was amended, relevantly, by the insertion of s 34(24B):
An amendment made to this Act by the Bail Amendment Act 2025 (other than by section 8 of that Act) applies to an application made, or an appeal commenced, under this Act on or after the commencement of that amendment, regardless of when the offence is alleged to have been committed.
The applicant’s Bail Notice was filed with this Court on 11 March 2025. It was in the following terms:
Take Notice that an Application for bail is sought to be made to a Judge, Law Courts, William Street, Melbourne by the above-mentioned Applicant, on a date to be fixed.

Submissions

The applicant submitted, and the respondent agreed, that the new bail laws did not apply to this bail application. This flowed, it was submitted, from the fact that the Notice of an application for bail was filed prior to 26 March 2025. The applicant relied on the decision of Re Pham,[1] where Croucher J held that 2024 amendments to the Bail Act did not apply to a bail application where the Notice of an application for bail was filed before the commencement date of the amendments.
[1]Re Pham [2024] VSC 143. At footnote 5, Croucher J stated: ‘As of the day of hearing this application, 25 March 2024, several amendments to the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) effected by the Bail Amendment Act 2023 (Vic) came into force…

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 Re Alsowafi (Bail Application)

Details

AGLC: Re Alsowafi (Bail Application) [2025] VSC 162
Case: [2025] VSC 162
Decision Date: 1 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re Alsowafi, the applicant sought bail from the County Court of Victoria. The applicant was charged with various offences including drug trafficking, possessing an offensive weapon, and possessing an unregistered firearm. The matter hinged on whether the new bail laws introduced by the Bail Amendment Act 2025 applied to the applicant’s case, and if there were exceptional circumstances that would justify the grant of bail. The prosecution argued that the new laws, which included stricter conditions for bail, applied and that the applicant posed an unacceptable risk of committing further offences, endangering the public, and interfering with witnesses.

The court had to decide whether the new bail laws applied to the applicant’s case and if exceptional circumstances existed that would warrant bail. The court considered the nature and seriousness of the offences, the risk of reoffending, and the availability of appropriate residential placement at Odyssey House in Benalla. The court also weighed the applicant’s right to a fair trial against the need to protect the community. The prosecution relied on recent cases such as Re Pham and Re Tiburcy to argue against bail, while the defence emphasised the availability of residential placement and the applicant’s history of compliance with court orders.

The court found that the new bail laws applied to the applicant's case. It acknowledged the serious nature of the charges but recognised the availability of residential placement at Odyssey House, which provided a structured environment to support the applicant. The court noted that the applicant had a history of complying with court orders and had no prior convictions. Given these factors, the court concluded that the risk of reoffending was not insurmountable and that the exceptional circumstances justified the grant of bail. The trial dates were set for August and November 2025.

The court granted bail, subject to conditions including residence at Odyssey House, a curfew, and regular reporting to the bail supervisor. The applicant was also required to surrender any firearms and refrain from contact with certain individuals. The court's decision balanced the seriousness of the charges with the potential for rehabilitation and the availability of appropriate support.

Orders