Re MMA (a pseudonym) (Bail Application) (No 2)

[2025] VSC 154

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:	28 March 2025
DATE OF RULING:	28 March 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re MMA (a pseudonym) (Bail Application) (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 154

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Where bail was granted two weeks prior and applicant has largely complied with conditions – Where period on remand may exceed any sentence of imprisonment if convicted – Whether imposition of conditions may mitigate risk – Bail granted for five 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

1. On 14 March 2025 I granted the applicant bail for two weeks on stringent conditions.  I published reasons for doing so and they have the medium-neutral citation Re MMA (a pseudonym) (Bail Application).[1]  Those reasons set out the extensive and concerning nature of the allegations that are made against the applicant and should be read with these reasons.

   [1][2025] VSC 113.

1. The conditions I imposed included that the applicant respect a curfew, follow the lawful directives of the Youth Justice Supervised Bail Support Service, attend all programs scheduled by Youth Justice as set out in a timetable provided by Youth Justice, not communicate with a list of persons provided by Victoria Police who are alleged gang members and attend at the Melton Police Station on each Monday, Wednesday and Friday between the hours of 6.00am and 9.00pm.

1. The applicant today has applied for an extension of his bail.  The Bail Act 1977 has been amended by the Bail Amendment Act 2025.  Some of those amendments commenced yesterday.  They are said in the transitional provisions to apply to ‘an application made … on or after the commencement of that amendment’.[2]  I consider that this is, in substance, a fresh application for bail and so the amendments introduced by the Bail Amendment Act 2025 apply to this application.[3]  Neither the applicant nor the prosecution argued against this analysis.

   [2]Bail Act 1977, s 34(24B), inserted by s 10 of the Bail Amendment Act 2025 (Vic).

   [3]See Re Tiburcy [2024] VSC 163, 6 [19] n 19 (Fox J).

1. The principal changes are that:

(a)   the safety of the community and persons affected by crime must be treated as being of ‘overarching importance’ rather than merely of equal importance to the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty and the other matters set out as guiding principles in the Bail Act 1977.[4] 

(b)  Although there remains a need to impose on a child ‘the minimum intervention required in the circumstances’, the remand of a child is not longer to be seen as ‘a last resort’.[5]

[4]The Bail Amendment Act 2025 removed the importance of ‘maximising the safety of the community and persons affected by crime to the greatest extent possible’ from the list of matters recognised as important in s 1B of the Bail Act 1977 and introduced it as a separate matter of ‘overarching importance’ in a new s 1B(1AA).

[5]The Bail Amendment Act 2025 deleted from s3B(1)(b) the words ‘with the remand of the child being a last resort’.

1. The tests otherwise remain as described in my earlier reasons. I am required to grant bail unless I am satisfied that there is an ‘unacceptable risk’ that the applicant 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. I am still also required to take into account the considerations set out in s 3B of the Bail Act 1977 including the applicant’s age and maturity at the time of the alleged offences, the need to strengthen and preserve the applicant’s relationship with his family, the importance of supporting him to live at home or in a safe, stable and secure living arrangement, the importance of supporting him to engage in education, training or work, the need to minimise the stigma to him resulting from being remanded in custody, the likely sentence should he be found guilty, the need to ensure that the conditions of bail are no more onerous than are necessary, and recommendations or information contained in any report provided by a bail support service.[6]

   [6]Bail Act 1977, s 3B.

1. The applicant has put before me a ‘Supervised Bail Progress Report’ prepared by Youth Justice dated 27 March 2025, and the prosecution has put before me an affidavit of exhibiting a report by the Informant.  This material establishes that, in the last two weeks:

(a)   The applicant has been present during his curfew hours on each of the three occasions on which a police officer attended to check;

(b)  The applicant attended at the Melton Police station on 4 occasions (14 March 2025, 17 March 2025, 19 March 2025 and 21 March 2025), but failed to attend on 2 occasions (24 March 2025 and 26 March 2025);

(c)   The applicant’s aunt and uncle, with whom he has lived, have ‘reported nil concerns’ to Youth Justice;

(d)  The applicant has fully engaged with Youth Justice and its programs, that is, appointments with Youth Justice, Mr Anderson Paeaia (an Intensive Cultural Support Worker) and ‘Les Twentyman’;  

(e)   The applicant commenced employment on 18 March 2025 in Williamstown and from Monday to Thursday from 6.00am to 3.00pm and Fridays from 6.00am to 12.00pm.  He has agreed to provide payslips to Youth Justice; and

(f)    The applicant has otherwise ‘had no involvements with police’.

1. Youth Justice (who, initially, it should be recalled, did not consider that the applicant was suitable for bail) consider that the applicant has ‘engaged to a satisfactory level with Youth Justice and participated positively during scheduled appointments’.  This is, of course, a good and positive sign.

1. Notwithstanding the applicant’s essential compliance with the bail conditions, I remain of the view that the applicant poses an unacceptable risk unless he is bailed on stringent conditions or if bailed for a lengthy period.

1. I was informed today that if the applicant were again granted bail, it could be on conditions essentially the same as those previously imposed (and set out in my earlier reason).

1. For essentially the same reasons as set out in my earlier reasons, I am not satisfied that the applicant is an unacceptable risk if he is bailed for a relatively short period of time and on those conditions.  In circumstances where the applicant has very much complied with the conditions imposed over the last fortnight, I propose to grant bail on the same conditions, modified as necessary having regard to the applicant’s work, for a period of approximately one month.

---