Re Jones (Bail Application)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2025 0231

ANN MAREE JONES	Applicant
v
VICTORIA POLICE	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Gorton J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 September 2025
DATE OF RULING:	29 September 2025
DATE OF REASONS:	30 September 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Jones (Bail Application)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 618

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Applicant charged with offences including aggravated burglary and theft whilst on bail – Where applicant has history of aggravated burglary, theft and failure to answer bail offences – Whether exceptional circumstances exist that justify grant of bail - Where applicant is vulnerable and pregnant Aboriginal woman – Exceptional circumstances exist – Whether unacceptable risk that if granted bail may commit Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 offences or endanger safety or welfare of other persons - Where aggravated burglary does not involve allegations of violence – Where no history of physical violence - Where thefts may endanger safety and welfare of other persons notwithstanding lack of physical violence - Where triable issues – Where applicant has access to stable accommodation – Where applicant has access to culturally-appropriate prenatal treatment and drug and alcohol counselling – Where Court Integrated Services Program recommends the applicant for case management – Risk is acceptable with imposition of bail conditions – Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 3AAA, 4AA, 4A.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms Brittany Jeffs	Law and Advocacy Centre for Women
For the Respondent	Ms Belinda Cowley	Victoria Police

HIS HONOUR:

A Introduction

Ann Maree Jones, the applicant, is a 44 year old Barkindji woman who is around 14 weeks’ pregnant with her eleventh child. On 29 September 2025, I granted her bail, on conditions, in respect of charged crimes alleged to have been committed on 8 July 2025[1] and 21 August 2025, and said I would publish reasons for doing so later. These are those reasons.
[1]There was some uncertainty as to whether the applicant was already on bail, or was seeking bail, for the offences alleged to have been committed on 8 July 2025. My decision and reasoning would have been the same if the applicant were already on bail for the offences alleged to have been committed on 8 July 2025.
The applicant is already on bail on charges for offences alleged to have been committed on 23 November 2023, 14, 22, 23, 26 and 28 December 2024, 30 January 2025, 27 February 2025, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 27 March 2025, 9 and 10 April 2025, and 28 May 2025, though I am told there is an as yet undetermined application to revoke bail on those charges presently before the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court. A number of these charges have ‘resolved’, in that she intends to plead guilty to them. She is also on summons on charges for offences alleged to have been committed on 17 September 2024 and 18 November 2024.

B The alleged offending for which the applicant is already on bail or summons

On 23 November 2023, the applicant and two co-accused attended BWS in Fitzroy, where, it is alleged, she and one of the co-accused distracted the worker while the second co-accused bagged a 10-pack of premix drinks. The applicant and two co-accused left the store without paying. The applicant has been charged with theft.
On 27 August 2024, four passports were taken from a car. On 2 September 2024, a wallet was taken from another car. A search warrant was executed at the applicant’s residence on 17 September 2024, and police located the passports and a Commonwealth Bank card. The applicant was charged with stealing and retaining goods believed to be stolen and dealing with property suspected to be the proceeds of crime.
On 18 November 2024, a Commonwealth Bank card was taken from a car. It is alleged that the applicant used that bank card to make two purchases from Tobacco Corner, Preston that same day. She has been charged with obtaining property by deception and retaining goods known to be stolen.
On 14 December 2024, the applicant and her then partner, Rodney Mitchell, attended an address on Bamfield Road, Heidelberg Heights. Mr Mitchell spoke to the resident about gas water heaters while the applicant, it is alleged, went into the resident’s bedroom and stole his credit card from his wallet. The applicant and Mr Mitchell then attended JD Sports at Northland Shopping Centre, Preston and, it is alleged, purchased two pairs of Nike sneakers using the stolen credit card. The pair then attended Coles Warringal in Heidelberg where they allegedly purchased a mobile phone using the stolen credit card. The applicant has been charged with burglary, theft and two counts of obtaining property by deception.
On 22 December 2024, the applicant attended a house in Southern Road, Heidelberg West where a man was gardening in his front yard. The applicant, it is alleged, struck up a conversation with the man and asked him for a shopping bag or container, which he went inside to collect for her. While the man was in the house, the applicant is alleged to have entered his garage and taken an Apple iPhone. She left shortly afterwards with a box that the man had given her and with the iPhone. The next day, using the ‘find my phone’ feature, the man was able to track the iPhone to the applicant’s residence. A search warrant was executed at the applicant’s residence on 23 December 2024, where police seized the two pairs of Nike sneakers, the iPhone, and various cards, none of which were in the applicant’s name. The applicant has been charged with theft, trespass and dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime.
On 26 December 2024, the applicant and an unidentified person attended RSL on Bell, Heidelberg Heights where, it is alleged, she took a scooter that was parked in the club’s carpark and rode it away from the venue. The unidentified person followed, taking with them a bicycle that the applicant had been riding previously. The applicant has been charged with theft.
On 28 December 2024, the applicant and Mr Mitchell were on Bell Street, Heidelberg and saw someone go into a lawnmower shop. The applicant followed that person into the shop and asked him about the colour of his driver’s licence, saying that she was from Western Australia. The person opened his wallet but dropped it on the shop floor and a number of cards fell out. The applicant, it is alleged, picked up the cards but pocketed his Commonwealth Bank card and left the store. Shortly afterwards, it is alleged, the applicant used that stolen bank card to make five purchases. The applicant has been charged with theft.
On 30 January 2025, the applicant and Mr Mitchell attended Northland Shopping Centre and, it is alleged, they made eight purchases at various stores and paid for a taxi fare using a Commonwealth Bank credit card belonging to a women who had lost her credit card a day or two earlier. The applicant has been charged with four counts of obtaining property by deception.
On 27 February 2025, the applicant attended a house in Setani Crescent, Heidelberg West and rang the doorbell. She asked the elderly resident for a glass of water. When he turned to walk to the kitchen, the applicant, it is alleged, pushed past him and began wandering around the house. It is alleged that she took the resident’s Aspire laptop while he was in the kitchen, then left after he yelled at her to leave the house. The applicant has been charged with aggravated burglary and theft.
On 14 March 2025, the applicant, Mr Mitchell and an unidentified female attended the BP service station at Heidelberg Heights. It is alleged that the trio used a bank card to purchase cigarettes and that bank card, an A5 tablet, a tote bag and a textbook had been stolen by the applicant and Mr Mitchell from a vehicle earlier that same night. The applicant has been charged with theft and obtaining property by deception.
Also, on 14 March 2025, the applicant and Mr Mitchell attended a house in Mulberry Parade, Heidelberg West and, it is alleged, offered the elderly resident, to assist with unpacking his car. This offer was declined. The applicant then asked the resident if she could fill up her water bottle. While the resident was filling the bottle, the applicant went into the house. The resident asked her to leave, then afterwards realised that his Samsung mobile phone and a tablet were missing. The applicant has been charged with aggravated burglary and theft.
On 18 March 2025, the applicant and Mr Mitchell caught a taxi from Northland Shopping Centre to Heidelberg. The taxi driver had stored his wallet in the driver’s side door. On arrival, it is alleged, the applicant tried to pay with a bank card that declined, and then used a different card to pay the fare. As she did so, she covered the name on the bank card. A short time later, the taxi driver realised that his bank card was missing and that, it is alleged, the applicant had used it to pay the taxi fare. The applicant has been charged with theft and obtaining property by deception.
On 19 March 2025, the applicant got into a taxi outside the Old England Hotel, Heidelberg with an unidentified male. She directed the driver to drive around Heidelberg and Preston for approximately 30 minutes before asking that he pull over and help the unidentified male remove an electric scooter and bag from the boot of the taxi. It is alleged that, while the driver was helping the male, the applicant took his wallet from the centre console of the taxi. The applicant has been charged with theft.
On 20 March 2025, the applicant and Mr Mitchell got into a taxi outside the Austin Hospital. The driver requested they prepay the fare and they gave him $25 in cash. The applicant and Mr Mitchell had electric scooters with them, and the driver assisted Mr Mitchell with putting the scooters in the boot of the taxi. He drove the pair to Liberty Parade, Heidelberg. A few hours later, the driver realised that various cards and $125 in cash were missing from the taxi. He later told police that only one other passenger had been in the taxi after the applicant and Mr Mitchell, and that passenger would not have been able to reach where those items were stored. A search of the applicant’s house was conducted on 21 March 2025, and police located the driver’s cards and a vaccination record for him. The applicant has been charged with theft.
Also, on 20 March 2025, the applicant and Mr Mitchell entered a house on Carbeena Parade, Heidelberg West. A resident of the house found the pair in his house after he got out of the shower. The applicant told the resident that she was at the house so that she could buy a car. The resident then called out to his brother. His brother came into the kitchen and, at Mr Mitchell’s request, provided him with a glass of water. The applicant and Mr Mitchell left shortly afterwards, and the brother then realised that his wallet was missing. The applicant has been charged with aggravated burglary.
On 27 March 2025, it is alleged, the applicant and Mr Mitchell took a wallet and various tools from a parked vehicle on Oak Street, Heidelberg. The applicant and Mr Mitchell, it is alleged, made three purchases in Heidelberg using a bank card from the wallet. The applicant has been charged with theft and obtaining property by deception.
On 9 April 2025, the applicant and Mr Mitchell caught a taxi from Bamfield Road, Heidelberg Heights. The taxi driver took the pair to Heidelberg Police Station so that the applicant could sign in as part of her bail conditions. The driver then dropped the applicant and Mr Mitchell back at Bamfield Road. Shortly afterwards, he realised that his Samsung mobile phone had been taken from the centre console of the taxi. The applicant was arrested on 10 April 2025, and was in possession of the driver’s mobile phone at the time. The applicant has been charged with theft, committing an indictable offence while on bail and retaining goods known to be stolen.
On 2 May 2025, the applicant gave an undertaking to Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court that she would appear before the Court on 28 May 2025, which, it is alleged, she failed to do. The applicant has been charged with failing to appear without reasonable cause. I was told that a bench warrant was issued for her arrest and then, on 24 June 2025, she was bailed on conditions including that she not associate with Mr Mitchell.
I am told that the matters relating to alleged offending on 17 September 2024, 18 November 2024, 22, 23, 26 and 28 December 2024, 30 January 2025, 19 March 2025 and 28 May 2025 have resolved and it is intended those matters will be proceeding by way of consolidated plea, possibly before the Heidelberg Koori Court. The other matters relating to the alleged offending on 23 November 2023, 14 December 2024, 27 February 2025, 14, 18, 20 and 27 March 2025, and 9 and 10 April 2025 are listed for contest mention on 12 November 2025 before the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court.

C The alleged offending for which the applicant seeks bail

On 8 July 2025, a wallet was taken from a vehicle in Heidelberg Heights which contained an ANZ bank card and $200 in cash. That same evening, three transactions were made using the ANZ bank card at a BP service station in Heidelberg Heights. It is alleged that CCTV footage from the service station shows the applicant and Mr Mitchell using the ANZ bank card to make the purchases. The applicant has been charged with three counts of obtaining property by deception.
It is alleged that on 21 August 2025, between 2.00pm and 2.50pm, the applicant and Mr Mitchell entered a house on Shelley Street, Heidelberg Heights through a bedroom window. One of the residents, a female, was home at the time. The applicant and Mr Mitchell, it is alleged, stole an Apple iPhone, an Apple MacBook, a grey backpack, a pair of Nike Air Max TN sneakers, and two Commonwealth Bank cards. The alleged theft was discovered shortly afterwards, when a second resident of the house, a male, returned home and discovered the bedroom window had been left open. The male resident tracked the location of the stolen iPhone and MacBook using the ‘find my phone’ feature, which showed that the MacBook was at Olympic Village Shopping Centre in Heidelberg West. At about 4:48pm, the male resident attended the Olympic Village Shopping Centre and saw Mr Mitchell wearing the sneakers allegedly taken from his house. Mr Mitchell was with the applicant and an unidentified female. The male resident confronted the applicant and Mr Mitchell, demanding they return his possessions. Mr Mitchell returned the sneakers, the backpack and the MacBook, but denied that he had the iPhone. It is alleged that Mr Mitchell then became aggressive towards the male resident and said, ‘I’ll put a bullet in ya boy, I will, I will’, saying he would return to the house and threatened to stab him if they ever crossed paths again. The male resident filmed this interaction.
On 3 September 2025, a search warrant was executed at the applicant’s residence on Bamfield Road, Heidelberg Heights. Police seized the male resident’s iPhone, an Apple MacBook, a Lenovo ThinkPad, and a blue e-bike. The applicant was not present at the time of the search.
On 8 September 2025, the applicant was arrested at her residence. She has been charged with, and now seeks bail on, offences of: aggravated burglary, theft, committing a Schedule 2 offence while on bail, two counts of contravening a conduct condition of bail, and three counts of dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime.
As noted above, at this time, the applicant was the subject of bail conditions that, amongst other things, prohibited her from associating with Mr Mitchell.

D The applicant’s background

The applicant is a Barkindji woman who was placed into care through Child Protection when she was 13 years old, following the death of her mother. This, I am told, caused her to become disconnected from culture, but she now maintains stronger ties to her community and culture. She is a descendant of the stolen generations.
As a child, the applicant was exposed to family violence, alcohol abuse and substance use. She was also subjected to physical and sexual violence, both at the hands of family members and carers, and has continued to experience family violence as an adult in intimate relationships.
The applicant first consumed alcohol when she was 13 years old, and began using methylamphetamine five years ago, when she was in her late thirties. She says she has abstained from alcohol for approximately two years. While in the community, the applicant receives drug and alcohol counselling from the Victorian Aboriginal Health Service, and attributes this engagement to a reduction in her methylamphetamine use. Between May and August 2025, until the applicant was remanded in custody, she was seeking treatment through the Victorian Aboriginal Health Service on at least a weekly basis.
She has, I am told, diagnoses of anxiety, severe depression, an intellectual disability and complex post-traumatic stress disorder and is due to undergo a neuropsychological assessment in November 2025, following which she may seek funding and support in the community through the National Disability Insurance Scheme (‘NDIS’).
The applicant is currently pregnant with her eleventh child, with a due date of 3 April 2026. Her other ten children are aged between one and 26 years old. Prior to being remanded in custody, she was, I am told, working with the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing towards reunification with her youngest child. While in the community, the applicant was receiving culturally-tailored antenatal care through the Mercy Hospital for Women in Heidelberg.
The applicant also has a lengthy criminal history including numerous convictions for burglary, theft, obtaining property by deception, committing indictable offences whilst on bail, dealing with proceeds of crime, and failing to answer bail.

E The legal test

The applicant and the respondent agree that the applicant must be denied bail unless she satisfies me that ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist that justify the grant of bail.[2]
[2]Section 4AA(1) provides that the exceptional circumstances test applies to a decision of whether to grant bail to a person accused of a Schedule 1 offence and aggravated burglary is now a Schedule 1 offence. Section 4AA(2)(c) provides that the exceptional circumstances test applies to a decision of whether to grant bail if the offence is alleged to have been committed while the person was on bail for a Schedule 1 or a Schedule 2 offence.
In considering whether exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail, I must take into account the ‘surrounding circumstances’.[3] The surrounding circumstances are ‘all the circumstances that are relevant to the matter’ and include: whether the applicant would be sentenced to a term of imprisonment; the nature and seriousness of the alleged offending; the strength of the prosecution case; the applicant’s criminal history; the extent to which the applicant has complied with the conditions of any earlier grant of bail; whether, at the time of the alleged offending, the applicant was on bail for another offence; the availability of treatment or bail support; the view of the alleged victims; and the applicant’s ‘personal circumstances, associations, home environment and background’.[4]
[3]Ibid s 4A(3).
[4]Ibid s 3AAA.
If I am satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail, I must then grant bail unless I am satisfied there exists an ‘unacceptable risk’ that the applicant would, if released on bail, commit a Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 offence, endanger the safety or welfare of any other person, interfere with a witness or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, or fail to surrender into custody in accordance with the conditions of bail.[5] When considering whether a risk of that type is an ‘unacceptable risk’, I must again take into account the ‘surrounding circumstances’ and consider whether the imposition of any bail conditions could mitigate the risk to one that is not an unacceptable risk.[6]
[5]Ibid s 4E(1).
[6]Ibid s 4E(3).

In considering both whether exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail and whether there is an unacceptable risk of the kind referred to above, regard must be had to the overarching importance of maximising the safety of the community and persons affected by crime, and also to the presumption of innocence and right to liberty of persons who have not been, and may never be, found guilty of the charges alleged against them.[7]
[7]Ibid s 1B.
Also, s 3A(1) of the Bail Act 1977 provides that I must also take into account ‘any issues that arise’ due to the applicant’s Aboriginality including:
(a)the historical and ongoing discriminatory systemic factors that have resulted in Aboriginal people being over-represented in the criminal justice system, including in the remand population;
(b)the risk of harm and trauma that being in custody poses to Aboriginal people;
(c)the importance of maintaining and supporting the development of the person's connection to culture, kinship, family, Elders, country and community;
(d)any issues that arise in relation to the person's history, culture or circumstances, including the following—
(i)    the impact of any experience of trauma and intergenerational trauma, including abuse, neglect, loss and family violence;
(ii)   any experience of out of home care, including foster care and residential care;
(iii) any experience of social or economic disadvantage, including homelessness and unstable housing;
(iv) any ill health the person experiences, including mental illness;
(v)   any disability the person has, including physical disability, intellectual disability and cognitive impairment;
(vi) any caring responsibilities the person has, including as the sole or primary parent of an Aboriginal child; and
(e)any other relevant cultural issue or obligation.
These matters inform and are powerful factors in the evaluations involved in determining whether there are ‘exceptional circumstances that justify the grant of bail’ and if so whether there is an ‘unacceptable risk’, but are not determinative of those questions.[8]
[8]See, eg: HA (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2021] VSCA 64, [58]-[59] (Maxwell P and Kaye JA); Re application for bail by Vicky McKay [2024] VSC 59, [34] (Niall JA); Re Terei [2024] VSC 294, [61] (Incerti J); Re RK [2024] VSC 792, [5]-[6] (Niall JA); Re Males [2024] VSC 802, [39] (Incerti J).

F Exceptional circumstances?

The respondent has conceded that a finding that exceptional circumstances exist is open and has not submitted that exceptional circumstances should not be found.
In my view, there are exceptional circumstances that justify the grant of bail, subject of course to the ‘unacceptable risk’ test. The factors that cause me to reach this conclusion are the applicant’s pregnancy, her Aboriginality and deprived background, and the fact that the aggravated burglary charges have not been associated with any acts of physical violence.

G Unacceptable risk?

It is not contended that the applicant poses a flight risk, in the sense that she might leave Victoria or Australia, or that there is a real risk that she will attempt to interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice. In those circumstances, the applicant is entitled to bail unless the respondent can establish that, if she is released on bail, there is an unacceptable risk that the applicant will commit a Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 offence, endanger the safety or welfare of any other persons, or fail to answer bail.
It is not contended that there is a real prospect that the applicant would, if released on bail, be physically violent or commit an offence such as carjacking or trafficking in large quantities of drugs of dependence. It was submitted, however, that there was an unacceptable risk that the applicant would:
(a)Commit a Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 offence such as aggravated burglary, of the type that it is alleged she had previously committed;
(b)Engage in conduct that, although not directly physically violent, would endanger the safety or welfare of other persons; and
(c)Fail to answer bail.

G.1 Risk of committing a Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 offence or endangering the safety or welfare of other persons

Theft and burglary are not Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 offences, but aggravated burglary is. Entering into somebody’s home in order to steal is only aggravated burglary if somebody is present at the time, or if the person entering has a weapon or explosive with them (which is not what is alleged here). It follows that for the purpose of assessing whether to grant bail, I must place little weight on the applicant’s extensive history of thefts, but must focus on the risk that she might enter into another’s property, while someone is present, with the intention of stealing.
Also, I accept the respondent’s submission that the ‘safety or welfare’ of other persons may be ‘endangered’ through persistent but non-violent acts including property crimes. An obvious example would be where an applicant for bail is repeatedly targeting a specific person or group of persons. In that way, the repeated non-violent offending may ‘endanger’ them in the sense of causing emotional damage. Also, where an applicant for bail instead steals effectively at random (as is the nature of the allegations here), including from vulnerable people by preying on their age or good natures, I accept that this too carries a risk or likelihood of ‘endangering’ the mental health or welfare of the victims. In this way, I accept the respondent’s submission that stealing from vulnerable people causes them real harm, not just economically but also emotionally and that the impact on them, and the harm caused, may be very significant even in the absence of physical violence.
That said, I note that:
(a)There is only one charge where it is alleged that the applicant entered another’s property other than through the door, and that is the charge for the alleged 21 August 2025 offending. All other occasions on which aggravated burglary is alleged are occasions where the applicant took advantage of an opportunity to enter to the knowledge of the owner and, she would say with the owner’s consent and without her then having an intention to steal;
(b)It is not alleged that the applicant ever refused to leave when asked or was orally abusive or committed an act of physical violence;
(c)I was told that Mr Mitchell has pleaded guilty to the 21 August 2025 charges. There are, however, triable issues in the case against the applicant for these charges. There is no direct evidence that the applicant entered the property or that she directly participated in the burglary. I was told that CCTV footage shows the applicant and Mr Mitchell together a few hundred metres away from the Shelley Street house on the way to the Olympic Village Shopping Centre and CCTV footage that shows them together at the Olympic Village Shopping Centre and the video taken by the male resident shows her with Mr Mitchell at the time of the confrontation but this, at least arguably, does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant either participated herself in the alleged burglary or was complicit in its being done, rather than merely being present when or shortly after the alleged crime was committed. Also, and although, some of the stolen goods were located at her house, her counsel told me that Mr Mitchell was also living there at that time;
(d)Between the applicant’s release on bail in early April 2025 and the 21 August 2025 alleged offences, she appears not to have engaged in repeated criminal behaviour following the pattern that, on the allegations, was established as occurring prior to that date. The only offending alleged (other than the failure to answer bail on 28 May 2025) is the use by her and Mr Mitchell of a stolen credit card on 8 July 2025. This is consistent with a reduction in alleged criminal activity on her part, following her pregnancy and engagement with support services over that time; and
(e)As noted, nearly all of the applicant’s alleged offending, including the alleged 8 July 2025 and 21 August 2025 offending, took place in the company of Mr Mitchell. Mr Mitchell is currently in prison and will not be released until 4 November 2025. So, if released on bail, the applicant will not be able to spend time with Mr Mitchell, even if she were otherwise inclined to do so, until that date.
In support of her application, the applicant called evidence to the effect that, should she be released on bail:
(a)She would have a place to live.
(b)She would continue her antenatal treatment at the Mercy Hospital for Women where she is receiving culturally-appropriate support. Her child is due on 3 April 2026. She had a checkup scheduled for 29 September 2025.
(c)She would continue a process, that she had commenced approximately three weeks prior to her arrest, with the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing directed at ensuring that she would be able to keep custody of her newborn child next year and, hopefully, regain custody of her one-year old. As part of this process, she would undergo drug screening three times a week.
(d)Court Integrated Services Program, or ‘CISP’, will provide and coordinate support services for her, including a referral to Djirra, a support service that deals with family violence, and the Victorian Aboriginal Health Service which assists people with drug and alcohol problems. She had appointments booked with the Victorian Aboriginal Health Service for 10am on 1 October 2025 and with CISP for 2:30pm on the same date.
(e)Ms Melissa Walshe of the Law and Advocacy Centre for Women would continue, with CISP, to provide support. The applicant would go from custody to her office to be given support such as a mobile phone and then to be taken to her residence. Ms Walshe gave oral evidence and specifically stated, on oath, that she would remain engaged with the applicant and do her best to ensure that she appeared at court on 12 November 2025. Further, she would facilitate the obtaining of a neuropsychological assessment (an appointment for which had been booked) and then explore the availability of assistance from NDIS. It seems that assistance may also be provided with an application for an intervention order that would prevent Mr Mitchell from contacting her on his release from prison – although I accept that this may not be a straightforward process in circumstances where I have not heard from Mr Mitchell and he is, I was told, the father of the applicant’s unborn child.
Further:
(a)The applicant, as a vulnerable and pregnant Aboriginal woman, would face a degree of hardship in custody; and
(b)The applicant had, to the date of the application, been in custody for 22 days on this period of remand, and had previously spent 21 days on remand, coming to a total of 43 days on remand. Any trial might not be until late this year or early next year. If it is early next year, the applicant might end up spending some six months on remand if bail were not granted, and there is a prospect, then, (albeit no certainty) that this period of remand would exceed any period of imprisonment imposed, if she is found guilty.
The respondent submitted, in essence, that the applicant had had all these supports available to her on previous occasions and that they had not prevented her from reoffending and that the likelihood was that, whatever good intentions might be expressed in the context of an application for bail, the reality is that there was no reason to consider that the applicant would not simply fall back into her old habits. Indeed, it was submitted that the recent offending indicated an ‘escalation’ in the level of the applicant’s offending.
I do not see the more recent charge as indicating, for the purposes of this application at any rate, an ‘escalation’ in the applicant’s offending. It is equally able to be seen as an event that indicates the poor influence that Mr Mitchell might have had on her, as it is only him that is directly implicated, particularly in light of the period of relative crime-free months enjoyed by the applicant prior to this episode.
I note, too, that bail was sought only until 12 November 2025, which was approximately one week after Mr Mitchell will be released from prison. There will be an opportunity for the Magistrates’ Court then to consider whether further bail should be granted, if such an application were made, having regard to the progress, or lack of progress, between now and then.
There is, of course, a risk that the applicant if released on bail will commit an aggravated burglary. In deciding whether that risk is an unacceptable risk, regard must be had to the level of that risk, the likely consequences to the community if she were to engage in that behaviour, and the consequences for her if she is not released on bail. Balancing these matters, and notwithstanding that I accept that the respondent’s concerns are genuine, I was not satisfied that the risk is an unacceptable risk if the applicant is bailed to 12 November 2025 on conditions that she reside at an identified residence, respect a curfew, report regularly to her local police station, and attend the various appointments that are currently scheduled and follow the lawful recommendations for treatment of the services who are assisting her.

G.2 Risk of failing to answer bail

As noted above, there is only one charge in recent times of the applicant failing to answer bail.
In circumstances where Ms Walshe has sworn that she, as the applicant’s case manager, will do her best to remind the applicant of her court commitments and to ensure that she turn up (‘providing immense wraparound services to support her’, in her words), I was also not satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk that the applicant would fail to answer bail.

H Disposition

As noted, and for the reasons set out above, I granted the applicant bail until 12 November 2025. If she wishes her bail to be extended beyond that date, an appropriate further application will need to be made, the resolution of which will no doubt be informed by events as they have transpired between now and then. I imposed conditions including that she reside at the identified address, remain there and produce herself if requested by a police officer between 10pm and 5am (unless she is seeking medical attention), report to her local police station each Monday, Wednesday and Friday, attend the scheduled and upcoming meetings with CISP and at the Mercy Hospital for Women and the Victorian Aboriginal Health Service and follow the lawful directions made by and treatment programs arranged by those bodies, and not contact Mr Mitchell.

[2025] VSC 618

29 September 2025