Re Am (a pseudonym) - [2025] VSC 637

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2025 0222

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by AM (a pseudonym)

---

JUDGE:	Orr JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 October 2025
DATE OF RULING:	9 October 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re AM (a pseudonym)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 637

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Charges of using a carriage service to publish violent extremist material, possessing and controlling such material, threatening to use force and violence against a group distinguished by religion and using a carriage service to make a threat to kill – Child applicant – Applicant assessed as unsuitable by Youth Justice for bail service – Failure to abide by bail conditions on previous grants of bail – Longstanding fixation with terrorist organisation and ideology – Acquisition of weapons that are unaccounted for – Whether exceptional circumstances made out – Whether unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of any person, or committing an offence while on bail – Exceptional circumstances made out – Unacceptable risk – Bail refused – Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 15AA; Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 1B, 3AAA, 3B and 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr S Norton with Mr N Jane	Stary Norton Halphen
For the Respondent	Mr B Stevens	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

HER HONOUR:

The applicant for bail, who was 17 years old at the time of the alleged offending, faces trial in the Children’s Court on four charges of contravening various provisions of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (‘Criminal Code’). The applicant was charged on 23 May 2025 with: one charge of using a carriage service to publish violent extremist material (charge 1);[1] one charge of possessing or controlling violent extremist material, in the form of data held in a computer or contained in a data storage device, obtained or accessed using a carriage service (charge 2);[2] one charge of threatening to use force or violence against a group distinguished by religion (charge 3);[3] and one charge of using a carriage service to make a threat to kill (charge 4).[4]
[1]Contrary to s 474.45B(1) of the Criminal Code.
[2]Contrary to s 474.45C(1) of the Criminal Code.
[3]Contrary to s 80.2BA(1) of the Criminal Code.
[4]Contrary to s 474.15(1) of the Criminal Code.

Charge 1 concerns the publication on Instagram of material related to the listed terrorist organisation, Islamic State (‘IS’). The applicant is alleged to have posted a French language IS video featuring a series of scenes of: air strikes on civilian populations; IS militants undertaking training, engaged in combat and executing captives; and terrorist attacks on Western cities. The video includes the English subtitle, ‘And the time has come for revenge’, at which point multiple captives are depicted on their knees being executed with a pistol at close range. It is alleged that the applicant posted this video on…

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 Am (a pseudonym)

Details

AGLC: Re Am (a pseudonym) [2025] VSC 637
Case: [2025] VSC 637
Decision Date: 9 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re Am, the applicant, a minor, sought bail from the County Court of Victoria. The applicant faced serious charges, including using a carriage service to publish violent extremist material, possessing and controlling such material, threatening to use force and violence against a group distinguished by religion, and using a carriage service to make a threat to kill. Youth Justice had assessed the applicant as unsuitable for bail services due to their failure to abide by bail conditions on previous grants of bail, their longstanding fixation with a terrorist organisation and its ideology, and the acquisition of weapons that remain unaccounted for. The court was tasked with determining whether exceptional circumstances existed to grant bail, and if the applicant posed an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of any person or committing an offence while on bail.

The court considered the nature and seriousness of the charges, the applicant's history of non-compliance with bail conditions, and their ongoing fixation with extremist ideologies. It was noted that the applicant had a history of engaging in activities that demonstrated a clear intent to incite violence and had failed to adhere to the conditions of previous bail grants. The court also highlighted the acquisition of weapons by the applicant, which remained unaccounted for, posing a significant risk to public safety. The court was required to weigh these factors against the presumption in favour of bail, as outlined in the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).

Upon weighing the evidence and arguments presented, the County Court of Victoria determined that exceptional circumstances did not exist to justify granting bail. The court found that the applicant posed an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of any person or committing an offence while on bail. The court emphasised the seriousness of the charges and the applicant's history of non-compliance with bail conditions, as well as the ongoing risk posed by the acquisition of unaccounted-for weapons. Consequently, the application for bail was refused.

The court made clear that the decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case, including the applicant's history of non-compliance, their fixation with extremist ideologies, and the risk posed by the acquisition of weapons. The court's decision underscored the importance of ensuring public safety and preventing the commission of further offences, particularly in cases involving serious charges related to violent extremism.

Orders