Re Ferry - [2025] VSC 347

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2025 0102

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by OSKA FERRY

---

JUDGE:	KAYE JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 June 2025
DATE OF RULING:	16 June 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Ferry
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 347

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail application – Applicant charged on four sets of charges – Charges include: burglaries (four charges); theft of firearms; possession of traffickable quantity of firearms; theft; driving motor vehicle in a speed dangerous and in manner dangerous; breach of bail condition – Whether unacceptable risk of endangering safety or welfare of others – Whether unacceptable risk applicant fail to answer bail – Bail granted with conditions – Bail Act 1977, ss 3AAA, 4 and 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms K. Rolfe	Barwon South West Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr N. Batten	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

The applicant is subject to four separate sets of charges for offences alleged to have been committed by him between 25 December 2020 and 25 March 2025. He was arrested on the third and fourth set of charges on 25 March 2025. On the following day, 26 March 2025, he made an unsuccessful application for bail, which was refused on the ground that there was an unacceptable risk that he would endanger the safety or welfare of other persons. He now applies to this Court for bail.

The alleged offending

For the purposes of the application, it is necessary to summarise the circumstances of the alleged offending.

In chronological order, the charges against the applicant are based on the following circumstances.

(1) The Rodriguez charges

The first set of charges, laid by Senior Constable Jordan Rodriguez on 23 November 2023, consist of nine charges, comprising one charge each of: theft from a motor vehicle; theft; retention of stolen goods; driving while disqualified; improper use of motor vehicle causing loss of traction; driving in a manner dangerous; driving at a dangerous speed; using an unregistered motor vehicle; exceeding the speed limit; and using a number plate not assigned to the vehicle.

The offending is alleged to have been committed on three separate dates. First, it is alleged that between 25 December and 26 December 2020, the applicant removed and took the Victorian registration plate off a vehicle in Ravenhall to which he was not entitled. Secondly, it is alleged that, between 19 January and 20 January 2021, the applicant attended at premises in Ballan, where he removed and took the registration plate off another vehicle. Those two offences are the subject of charges 1 and 2.

The remaining offences, which are the subject of charges 3 to 10, were allegedly committed on 22 November 2023. On that date, at approximately 11:15 pm, the applicant was detected to be driving a motor vehicle, displaying two separate Victorian registrations,…

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 Ferry

Details

AGLC: Re Ferry [2025] VSC 347
Case: [2025] VSC 347
Decision Date: 16 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Ferry involved the applicant, who was before the court for a bail application. The applicant had been charged with a series of offences, including four instances of burglary, theft of firearms, possession of a traffickable quantity of firearms, theft, and driving a motor vehicle in a manner that was both dangerous to speed and in a dangerous manner. Additionally, the applicant was alleged to have breached a bail condition. The court was required to determine if there was an unacceptable risk that the applicant would endanger the safety or welfare of others, or if there was a risk that the applicant might fail to answer bail. This application was heard under the Bail Act 1977.

The legal issues that the court had to address centred on the criteria set out in sections 3AAA, 4, and 4E of the Bail Act 1977. The court needed to weigh the seriousness of the alleged offences against the risk the applicant posed to the community and the likelihood of the applicant failing to comply with bail conditions. The applicant's criminal history, the nature of the alleged offences, and any potential impact on the community if the applicant were released on bail were all considered. The court also needed to assess the strength of the evidence against the applicant and whether there were any mitigating factors that could reduce the risk posed by the applicant.

After considering the evidence and arguments presented, the court determined that while the charges were serious, there were sufficient conditions that could be imposed to mitigate the risks. The court found that with appropriate bail conditions, the risk of the applicant endangering the safety or welfare of others, or failing to comply with bail, could be adequately managed. Consequently, the court granted the applicant bail with specific conditions designed to ensure compliance and reduce any potential risk to the community. These conditions included regular reporting to a bail supervision officer, a curfew, and restrictions on the applicant’s movements and associations.

The final orders of the court included the release of the applicant on bail, subject to the conditions imposed. The applicant was required to adhere strictly to these conditions, and any breach would result in the immediate recall of bail. The court emphasised the importance of compliance with these conditions to protect the safety and welfare of the community. The applicant was also warned of the serious consequences of any further breaches of the law or bail conditions.

Orders