Re HT - [2025] VSC 310

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2025 0077

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by HT

---

JUDGE:	Elliott J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28 May 2025
DATE OF RULING:	3 June 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re HT
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 310

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – 17 year old child – Charge of murder – Schedule 1 offence – Requirement to show exceptional circumstances – Nature and seriousness of alleged offending – Strength of prosecution case – Criminal history – Personal circumstances – Special vulnerability – Stable accommodation – Family support – Education – Bail support service – Exceptional circumstances established – Applicant an unacceptable risk – Bail refused – Bail Act 1977 (Vic), ss 1B, 3, 3AAA, 3B, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E, 5AAA, 12, 17D, 17E, 17F, 17G, 17J, 17K, 17N, Schedule 1, Item 2 – Bail Amendment Act 2025 (Vic), s 4 – Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic), ss 3, 346, 534(1)(a)(ii) – Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 324 – Youth Justice Act 2024 (Vic), s 2 - Bail Amendment (Electronic Monitoring) Regulations 2025 (Vic), rr 27, 29.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the applicant	Sam Andrianakis	KPT Legal Defence Lawyers
For the respondent	Nadia Kaddeche	Victoria Police

HIS HONOUR:

A. Introduction

On 3 February 2025, the applicant, HT,[1] was arrested and charged with the murder of Kon Hsu Sein (“Sein”) alleged to have occurred on 20 December 2024. He has been on remand since the date of his arrest.
[1]The pseudonym “HT” has been used to protect the identity of the applicant and to ensure compliance with s 534(1)(a)(ii) of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic).
HT applies for bail. He relies upon a number of matters in support of the existence of exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of bail.
These include issues with the prosecution case, his limited criminal history, compliance with conditions of earlier grants of bail, personal circumstances (including family support), accommodation and education, special vulnerability as a child, the availability of Youth Justice as a bail support service and the time it is likely to take for this matter to be listed for trial.
The prosecution opposes bail on the basis that HT has failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. Even if HT could establish exceptional circumstances, the prosecution submits he would present an unacceptable risk if released on bail.
For the reasons that follow, HT’s application for bail is refused.

B. Background

B.1 The prosecution case

The following account is based on the prosecution case and comprises allegations only.

B.1.1 Events prior to the alleged murder

At 5.40pm on 20 December 2024, police attended a playground in Melton West and spoke to a group of 11 males in relation to consuming alcohol in a public place. During this interaction, it is alleged police spoke with one of the co-accused…

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 HT

Details

AGLC: Re HT [2025] VSC 310
Case: [2025] VSC 310
Decision Date: 3 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re HT involved a 17-year-old defendant charged with murder, a Schedule 1 offence under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic). The applicant, represented by counsel, sought bail in the County Court of Victoria, presided over by Her Honour Judge Brown. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant, given the serious nature of the charge and the likelihood of a lengthy trial, met the exceptional circumstances test necessary for bail under the Bail Act.

The court considered several factors, including the gravity of the alleged offence, the strength of the prosecution's case, the applicant's criminal history, and personal circumstances. While the applicant had stable accommodation, family support, and access to education and the bail support service, these factors were weighed against the severity of the charge and the potential risk to the community. The court found that the exceptional circumstances required to grant bail were not present, as the applicant posed an unacceptable risk of reoffending, particularly given the nature and seriousness of the alleged offence.

In its reasoning, the court highlighted that the applicant's age and the seriousness of the charge necessitated a high threshold for bail. The court concluded that there was a substantial likelihood that the applicant would reoffend if released on bail, and that this risk outweighed the applicant's personal circumstances. Consequently, the court refused the bail application under section 3 of the Bail Act 1977.

The final orders of the court were that the applicant remain in custody pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings against him. The court also noted the importance of the applicant's age and the need for special consideration in accordance with the Youth Justice Act 2024 (Vic) and the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic). The court’s decision was guided by a comprehensive analysis of the relevant statutory provisions and the principles established by relevant case law.

Orders