JUDGE:	K Judd J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 August 2025
DATE OF RULING:	19 August 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Edwards
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 498

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Bail — Applicant charged with voluminous number of offences — Multiple charges of bail contraventions — Determination in relation to an Aboriginal person — Whether exceptional circumstances — Whether unacceptable risk — Bail Act 1977 (Vic), s 3A — Re Terei [2024] VSC 294.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	M Brown	Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service
For the Respondent	P Murphy, solicitor	Victoria Police

HER HONOUR:

The applicant is a 48 year old Aboriginal woman of the Gunnai Kurnai people. Her mob is the Harrison family. She has been in custody since 23 July 2025, following the execution of a number of warrants on that date.

The charges the applicant faces, and for which she seeks bail, have been consolidated into a single proceeding in the Magistrates’ Court. The consolidated proceeding is being managed in the new Intensive Case Management List, which was established to deal with proceedings requiring a priority hearing. As a result, the proceeding is currently being mentioned in court on a weekly basis.

In support of her application, the applicant relied on two affidavits of Ms Sarah Dunstan dated 6 August 2025 and 14 August 2025 and the oral evidence of Ms Ellen Bailey, Mental Health clinician attached to the Royal Melbourne Hospital. In resisting the application, the respondent relied on two affidavits of Mr Leigh Harrison dated 13 August 2025 and 14 August 2025. Both parties filed written submissions.

The offending for which bail is sought spans the period 22 January 2021 to 30 June 2025. The offending ranges from lower level property offending, such as thefts and obtaining property by deception to much more serious offending involving violence, such as intentionally cause injury, make threat to kill and assault with a weapon. There are charges of burglary, aggravated burglary, criminal damage and handle stolen goods, as well as charges involving controlled weapons and drugs. There are numerous charges of fail to answer bail, contravening conduct conditions of bail and committing an indictable offence while on bail.

The number of charges is voluminous and I do not intend to summarise, or even categorise, all of the offending. The most serious offending involves the charges laid by the informants Janiw, Fengler and Bain‑King.

The Janiw charges consist of aggravated burglary, burglary, two charges of theft and dealing with property suspected to be the proceeds of crime. This offending is said to have occurred on 14 February 2021. The statement of alleged facts sets out the following:

On 14^th February 2021 at approximately 11:20PM, the accused entered the rear yard…

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 Edwards

Details

AGLC: Re Edwards [2025] VSC 498
Case: [2025] VSC 498
Decision Date: 19 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re Edwards, the applicant, charged with a significant number of offences, sought bail from the court. The application was opposed by the prosecution due to the nature and extent of the charges against the applicant, as well as multiple instances of bail contraventions. The court was required to consider whether there were exceptional circumstances warranting bail and whether the applicant posed an unacceptable risk to the community if released. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant met the criteria for bail under section 3A of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic). This required the court to assess the seriousness of the offences, the likelihood of the applicant reoffending, and the potential impact on the community. Given the voluminous number of charges and prior bail contraventions, the court also had to determine if there were exceptional circumstances that would justify granting bail despite these factors. The court referenced the principles established in Re Terei [2024] VSC 294, which emphasised the importance of considering the individual circumstances of Aboriginal persons when making bail decisions.

The court found that the seriousness of the offences, coupled with the applicant's history of breaching bail conditions, presented a significant risk to the community. The court concluded that the risk of reoffending was high, and there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant granting bail. Consequently, the application for bail was dismissed. The court emphasised the need to protect the community and the importance of adhering to the conditions of bail when granted.

The court's final order was that the applicant's application for bail was refused. The applicant was to remain in custody pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings against them.

Orders