Re Barbar - [2025] VSC 404

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

NOT RESTRICTED

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2025 0129

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by ZARNA BARBAR

---

JUDGE:	BEACH JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	4 July 2025
DATE OF RULING:	4 July 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Barbar
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 404

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Applicant charged with trafficking in drug of dependence and other charges – Applicant accused of a Schedule 2 offence while subject to a summons to answer to a charge of another Schedule 2 offence – Requirement to show exceptional circumstances – Whether exceptional circumstances made out – Whether applicant an unacceptable risk – Bail granted – Bail Act 1977, ss 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4A, 4D and 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms Z Garde-Wilson	Garde-Wilson Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr A Turner	Legal Services Department Victoria Police

HIS HONOUR:

On 28 May 2025, the applicant was arrested and charged with 10 offences: one charge of possessing an explosive substance[1] (charge 1); one charge of trafficking a drug of dependence (namely 1,4–butanediol)[2] (charge 2); one charge of possessing a drug of dependence (namely 1,4–butanediol)[3] (charge 3); one charge of possessing a drug of dependence (namely methylamphetamine)[4] (charge 4); one charge of theft of a motor vehicle[5] (charge 5); one charge of handling stolen goods[6] (charge 6); one charge of possessing cartridge ammunition[7] (charge 7); one charge of possessing a drug of dependence (namely an unknown prescription drug)[8] (charge 8); one charge of dealing in property suspected to be the proceeds of crime[9] (charge 9); and one charge of failing to comply with a direction issued under s 465AAA of the Crimes Act (charge 10).
[1]Contrary to s 317(4) of the Crimes Act 1958.
[2]Contrary to s 71AC of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981.
[3]Contrary to s 73 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act.
[4]Contrary to s 73 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act.
[5]Contrary to s 74 of the Crimes Act.
[6]Contrary to s 88(1) of the Crimes Act.
[7]Contrary to s 124 of the Firearms Act 1996.
[8]Contrary to s 73 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act.
[9]Contrary to s 195 of the Crimes Act.

The applicant, who is 26 years of age, has no prior convictions. After she was arrested and charged, she was remanded in custody. She has been in custody since 28 May 2025. On 23 June 2025, she applied for bail in the Magistrates’ Court. Her application was refused. On 23 June 2025, she filed a notice of intention to make an application for bail in this Court. This is the determination of that application.

Trafficking in a drug of dependence is a Schedule 2 offence within the meaning of s 3 of the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’).[10] Charge 2 (trafficking in a drug of dependence) is…

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 Barbar

Details

AGLC: Re Barbar [2025] VSC 404
Case: [2025] VSC 404
Decision Date: 4 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Re Barbar involved an applicant who was charged with trafficking in a drug of dependence, along with other related charges. The applicant was also accused of committing a Schedule 2 offence while being subject to a summons for another Schedule 2 offence. The case was heard in the relevant court, which needed to determine whether the applicant was eligible for bail. The primary legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the applicant had demonstrated exceptional circumstances and whether the applicant posed an unacceptable risk to the community.

The court considered the statutory provisions of the Bail Act 1977, including sections 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4A, 4D, and 4E. The court determined that the applicant had indeed presented exceptional circumstances that warranted consideration for bail. These circumstances included the applicant's family ties and support network, as well as the potential for the applicant to comply with bail conditions. Furthermore, the court found that the applicant did not represent an unacceptable risk to the community. Consequently, the court granted the applicant bail, taking into account the evidence presented and the relevant legal provisions.

The court's decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the applicant's circumstances and the statutory requirements for bail. The court emphasised the importance of considering exceptional circumstances when deciding whether to grant bail, and it found that the applicant had met this threshold. Additionally, the court examined the risk posed by the applicant to the community and determined that it was not unacceptable. The court's decision to grant bail was informed by the evidence presented and the legal framework provided by the Bail Act 1977. The applicant was granted bail subject to certain conditions, as outlined in the court's decision.

Orders