Re Campbell - [2025] VSC 591

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2025 0200

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977
and
IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by DECLAN CAMPBELL

---

JUDGE:	Incerti J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5 September 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 September 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Campbell
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 591

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail application – Prima facie entitlement to bail – Arson – Alleged offending while applicant on several counts of bail – Aboriginal applicant – First time in custody – Homelessness – Risk of harm in custody – Whether time on remand would exceed any custodial sentence – Bail granted – Bail Act 1977 ss 1B, 3A, 3AAA, 4, 4E – Re Terei [2024] VSC 294.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms R Samuels	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Respondent	Mr G Buchhorn	Office of Public Prosecutions

HER HONOUR:

On 5 September 2025, I heard an application for bail in respect of Declan Campbell (‘the applicant’).

At the conclusion of the hearing, I was not satisfied that the respondent had demonstrated that the applicant posed an unacceptable risk of the kind outlined in s 4E(1) of the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’). Accordingly, I granted the applicant bail. These are my reasons.

Background

The applicant is seeking bail in this Court on two sets of charges, which I will refer to as the ‘Informant Formosa’ and ‘Informant Carfoot’ matters. In total, those matters include one charge of criminal damage by fire (arson), five charges of theft or attempted theft, and six charges of committing an indictable offence on bail.

He was remanded on both of those matters on 29 May 2025. A bail application was made on that date, which was adjourned until it was withdrawn on 13 June 2025. The applicant again made an application for bail in July 2025, which was ultimately refused by the Magistrates’ Court at Swan Hill on 24 July 2025.

The matters are next listed for committal mention in the Bendigo Magistrates’ Court on 15 October 2025.

Informant Formosa – alleged offending

On the morning of 22 May 2025, the applicant attended a thrift shop in Kyabram. A staff member observed the applicant attempting to steal a silver chain and asked him to replace the chain, which he did in an aggressive manner. This conduct forms the basis for charge 9 (attempted theft).

Later that same day, at 11:15pm, the applicant returned to the thrift shop. By methods unknown, the applicant proceeded to light a fire at the rear of the store before leaving the scene. The fire was extinguished roughly 90 minutes later. The current cost for repairs is estimated to be in excess of $625,000 although the total cost remains unknown. This forms the basis of charge 1 (criminal damage by fire (arson)).

On 28 May, the applicant took a propane torch kit and gas cylinder, valued at…

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 Campbell

Details

AGLC: Re Campbell [2025] VSC 591
Case: [2025] VSC 591
Decision Date: 17 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case, Campbell, sought bail from the County Court of Victoria in relation to charges of arson. Campbell, who is Aboriginal, was alleged to have committed the offence while already on bail for several other charges. This was his first period in custody, and he was also homeless. Campbell argued for bail on the grounds of his prima facie entitlement, the risk of harm in custody, and the potential for the time on remand to exceed any custodial sentence he might receive.

The court needed to determine whether Campbell met the criteria for a prima facie entitlement to bail under the Bail Act 1977. It considered the nature and circumstances of the alleged offence, the risk to the community if bail was granted, and the applicant's personal circumstances, including his first-time status in custody and homelessness. The court also had to balance these factors against the seriousness of the offence and the risk to the community.

The court found that, despite the seriousness of the offence, Campbell's personal circumstances and the risk of harm in custody warranted a grant of bail. The court determined that Campbell had a prima facie entitlement to bail and that the time on remand would not exceed any custodial sentence he might receive. It considered the principles in Re Terei, which emphasised the importance of proportionality and the need to avoid disproportionate periods of pre-trial detention. The court concluded that it was appropriate to grant bail to ensure that Campbell's detention did not exceed the potential custodial sentence.

The final orders of the court were that bail be granted to Campbell, subject to certain conditions, including electronic monitoring and residence at a specified address.

Orders