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

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.

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.

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).

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…

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) (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Re MMA (a pseudonym) (Bail Application) (No 2) [2025] VSC 154
Case: [2025] VSC 154
Decision Date: 28 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of MMA, a pseudonym, the applicant has applied for an extension of their previously granted bail. The application was heard by Gorton J in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issues before the court were whether MMA, who has largely complied with the stringent bail conditions set two weeks prior, poses an unacceptable risk to the community and whether stringent conditions or a lengthy bail period could mitigate any such risk. The court had to consider the amended Bail Act 1977 (Vic) which now places the safety of the community and persons affected by crime as of overarching importance, and also assess MMA's engagement with Youth Justice and their employment.

The court found that despite MMA's essential compliance with the bail conditions, they still pose an unacceptable risk unless stringent conditions are imposed or if the bail period is extended. The court granted bail for approximately one month, subject to the same stringent conditions previously imposed, modified as necessary to accommodate MMA's employment. These conditions included adhering to a curfew, attending specified police stations, not communicating with certain individuals, and following the directives of Youth Justice. The court relied on the 'Supervised Bail Progress Report' prepared by Youth Justice and an affidavit from the prosecution, both of which indicated that MMA has engaged positively with Youth Justice and adhered to most bail conditions.

The court's decision balanced the overarching importance of community safety with the need to impose the minimum intervention required in the circumstances. Given the serious nature of the allegations against MMA and the risk factors, the stringent conditions were deemed necessary to mitigate the risk. MMA was granted bail on the modified conditions for a period of approximately one month.

Orders