Re MMA (a pseudonym) (Bail Application) - [2025] VSC 113

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2025 0026

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by MMA (a pseudonym)

MMA (a pseudonym)	Applicant
v
VICTORIA POLICE	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Gorton J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5 & 13 March 2025
DATE OF RULING:	14 March 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re MMA (a pseudonym) (Bail Application)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 113

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Where exceptional circumstances test satisfied – Whether unacceptable risk test satisfied - Where extensive allegations of violent conduct but no prior convictions – Where past failure to comply with bail conditions – Where period on remand may exceed any sentence of imprisonment if convicted – Whether imposition of conditions may mitigate risk – Bail granted for two weeks on conditions – Bail Act 1977 (Vic), ss 3AAA, 3B(1)(b), 4A, 4E(3)(b).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms E Allan of counsel	Shanelle Veit Lawyers
For the Respondent	Ms D Caruso of counsel	Victoria Police

HIS HONOUR:

A. Introduction

MMA,[1] the applicant, who is now 18 years old, applied for bail. On 14 March 2025, I granted bail for two weeks on stringent conditions. I gave brief oral reasons but said that I would publish fuller reasons. These are those reasons.
[1]A pseudonym has been used to protect the identity of the applicant and ensure compliance with s 534(1)(a)(ii) of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic).

The applicant had been in custody since 30 December 2024. The charges the applicant faces relate to incidents alleged to have taken place when he was 17 years old and thus was a ‘child’ for the purposes of the Bail Act 1977. It was common ground that the applicant’s status as a child at the time of the alleged offences constituted an ‘exceptional circumstance’ that justified the grant of bail unless there was an ‘unacceptable risk’ that he would, if granted bail, endanger the safety or welfare of a person or commit an offence while on bail or interfere with a witness or otherwise obstruct the course of justice or fail to surrender into custody in accordance with the conditions of bail.

In determining whether there is an unacceptable risk, I must take into account the surrounding circumstances which include the nature and seriousness of the alleged offending, the strength of the prosecution case, the applicant’s criminal history (or lack of criminal history), the extent to which he has complied with conditions of any earlier grant of bail, whether at the time of the alleged offending the applicant was on bail or on summons for another offence, the availability of treatment or bail support services, the length of time he is likely to spend in custody if bail is refused, and the applicant’s ‘personal circumstances, associations, home environment and background.’[2] Because the applicant was a child at the time of…

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 MMA (a pseudonym) (Bail Application)

Details

AGLC: Re MMA (a pseudonym) (Bail Application) [2025] VSC 113
Case: [2025] VSC 113
Decision Date: 14 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re MMA (a pseudonym), the respondent applied for bail following charges relating to violent conduct. The application was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The central dispute was whether the respondent should be granted bail, given the serious allegations against him and his prior history of failing to comply with bail conditions.

The court needed to determine whether the exceptional circumstances test and the unacceptable risk test under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) were satisfied. The exceptional circumstances test was met due to the potential lengthy period on remand, which could exceed any sentence of imprisonment if the respondent were convicted. Regarding the unacceptable risk test, the court considered the nature and circumstances of the alleged offences, the respondent's history, and the risk he posed to the community. The respondent had extensive allegations of violent conduct but no prior convictions.

The court concluded that while the allegations were serious, the imposition of stringent bail conditions could mitigate the risk. The respondent was granted bail for two weeks, subject to conditions including residence at a specified address, a curfew, and regular check-ins with bail supervision officers. The court believed these measures would adequately manage the risk posed by the respondent.

Orders