Re Newman (Bail Application)
[2025] VSC 568
•9 September 2025
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2025 0191
IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977
-and-
IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by AMBER NEWMAN
BETWEEN:
| AMBER NEWMAN | Applicant |
| and | |
| VICTORIA POLICE | Respondent |
---
JUDGE: | Gorton J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 8 September 2025 |
DATE OF RULING: | 9 September 2025 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Re Newman (Bail Application) |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VSC 568 (First Revision 9 September 2025) |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Charges of burglary, theft of firearm, possession of traffickable quantity of firearms, false imprisonment and armed robbery – Where applicant has significant criminal history but no history of violent offending or firearm offences – Where applicant was subject to Community Correction Order and to prior grant of bail – Where applicant has longstanding substance abuse issues – Where offending connected to substance abuse – Where applicant has offer of residential drug and alcohol rehabilitation program – Where first opportunity for applicant to attend residential rehabilitation – Where exceptional circumstances exist to justify the grant of bail – Where the risk is acceptable on conditions that the applicant reside at rehabilitation facility - Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 4AA, 4A.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant | Mr William Blake and Ms Gabrielle Redmond | Sarah Pratt and Associates |
| For the Respondent | Mr Matthew Fisher | Office of Public Prosecutions |
HIS HONOUR:
A Background
The applicant, Amber Newman, is a 28 year old woman who seeks bail in relation to offences alleged to have been committed on the night of 7 April 2025 and on 23 June 2025.
A.1 The 7 April 2025 charges
The 7 April 2025 charges are for armed robbery, false imprisonment, theft of a motor vehicle, unlawful assault, possession of methylamphetamine, possessing the proceeds of a crime, and failing to render assistance. It is alleged that on 7 April 2025, the applicant rented an apartment in Essendon North using her own name. She sent a text message that evening inviting one of the alleged victims, David Boswell, to meet her at the apartment. At 12:34am on 8 April 2025, two of the applicant’s co-accused, Harris Kondzic and an unidentified person, met the applicant at the foyer of the apartment building, and she took them up to the apartment. At about 1:02am, Mr Boswell was dropped at the apartment building by the second alleged victim, Con Komilionis, where Mr Boswell met the applicant and was escorted to the apartment. It is alleged that inside the apartment, Mr Boswell was severely assaulted. He suffered lacerations to his face and one of his ears was cut and a piece of it severed.
At 1:07am, the third co-accused, Jonathon Eversham, arrived at the apartment. He was met by Mr Kondzic and taken up to the apartment. Shortly afterwards, Mr Komilionis, the second alleged victim, received a text message from Mr Boswell’s phone, purporting to be from Mr Boswell, requesting that he meet the applicant at the apartment so that he could take Mr Boswell home. The prosecution case is that either the applicant or one of the co-accused sent this message using Mr Boswell’s mobile phone. Mr Komilionis arrived at the apartment building and met with the applicant at around 1:53am and she took him back to the apartment. When he entered the apartment, Mr Komilionis saw Mr Kondzic, Mr Eversham and the unidentified person standing in the dark and wearing face coverings. It is alleged that one of them was holding a silver handgun and another was holding a large firearm. Mr Komilionis was instructed to lay on the ground and not look up, as one or more of the applicant and co-accused took his mobile phone, wallet and car keys.
A fire alarm went off in the building, and firefighters attended. When the alarm de-activated, the applicant put a mask over Mr Boswell’s head and escorted him and Mr Komilionis out of the building. The applicant, Mr Eversham, Mr Kondzic and the unidentified person left in separate vehicles. Either Mr Kondzic or the unidentified person allegedly drove away in Mr Komilionis’ vehicle, which he had parked outside the apartment building. Mr Komilionis spoke to the firefighters in attendance, and disclosed that he and Mr Boswell had been kidnapped. On the instruction of the firefighters, Mr Komilionis and Mr Boswell returned to the apartment where they locked themselves in the bathroom. Shortly afterwards, police and paramedics attended. By this time, Mr Boswell was laying face down on the bathroom floor and going in and out of consciousness. He was taken to Royal Melbourne Hospital. En route, he told paramedics and police that he had also been assaulted by one or more of the applicant and co-accused inserting a knife into his anus.
A.2 The 23 June 2025 charges
The 23 June 2025 charges are for burglary, theft of a firearm, possession of a traffickable quantity of firearms, theft and possession of gamma-hydroxybutyrate (commonly referred to as ‘GHB’). Blair Gilson, the complainant, is the registered owner of five firearms that were kept in a gun safe in the main bedroom of his house in the regional town of Gordon in Victoria. On 23 June 2025, he was on holiday when he received notifications that movement had been detected by the CCTV system installed on his house. Mr Gilson is said to have observed, via his security system, a male and female unknown to him exit a van outside his premises and begin spray painting the cameras installed on his house. Mr Gilson phoned his aunt, Tammy Gilson, who lived nearby, and requested she attend his house. Ms Gilson approached the back of the house and was confronted near the entrance by someone who was wearing a balaclava, said to be the applicant, and a co-accused. Ms Gilson could see a male in the lounge-room carrying firearms she recognised as belonging to Mr Gilson. Ms Gilson began filming the applicant and co-accused on her mobile phone as they ran out of the house and towards the van they had parked in the driveway. Ms Gilson grabbed from the front cabin a handbag and mobile phone before the applicant and co-accused left in the van with the following stolen items:
(a)Five firearms, including a shotgun and four rifles;
(b)A hunting knife;
(c)A passport;
(d)A birth certificate; and
(e)A folder containing personal documents.
B The legal test
Because of the nature of the charges, the applicant must be denied bail unless she can establish that there are exceptional circumstances that justify the grant of bail.[1] In considering whether exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail, I must take into account the ‘surrounding circumstances’.[2] 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 and, if so, whether the time the applicant would spend remanded in custody if bail is refused would exceed that 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 there is in force a family violence intervention order against the applicant; the availability of treatment or bail support; the view of the alleged victims; and the applicant’s ‘personal circumstances, associations, home environment and background.’[3]
[1]Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 4AA(2)(c)(v), 4A(1).
[2]Ibid s 4A(3).
[3]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 that there is 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.[4] When considering whether a risk of that type is an ‘unacceptable risk’, I must take into account, again, the surrounding circumstances and whether there are any conditions of bail that may be imposed to mitigate the risk so that it is not an unacceptable risk.[5] All these tests are to be applied and interpreted having regard to both the overarching importance of maximising the safety of the community and persons affected by crime, but also 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.[6]
[4]Ibid s 4E(1).
[5]Ibid s 4E(3).
[6]Ibid s 1B.
C Exceptional circumstances?
The applicant was exposed to childhood trauma and has used cannabis since she was 12 years old and methylamphetamine and other drugs since she was 14 years old. At 12 years old, she effectively left home and started to live with a man in his twenties who, it seems, encouraged her drug use. She later moved in with another friend and her older brother who, she says, again encouraged her in her drug use and introduced her to sex work. She has continued to have a substance abuse problem and it is accepted that her offending has been associated with her substance abuse problem.
The applicant has a significant past criminal history but not a history of violent offending or possession of firearms. On 27 September 2022, she was convicted and fined for speeding, failing to carry a probationary licence, careless driving, exceeding the prescribed concentration of alcohol, refusing to provide a sample of oral fluid, possessing methylamphetamine, 1,4-Butanediol and cannabis, and theft of a motor vehicle. On 25 September 2024, she was found guilty of and given a Community Correction Order for burglary, theft, driving while disqualified, possessing methylamphetamine, and trafficking in a drug of dependence. Significantly, she was granted bail following her arrest for the 7 April 2025 charges and so was both on bail and subject to the conditions of the Community Correction Order at the time of the alleged 23 June 2025 charges. Further, the Informant claims to have found in the handbag that was recovered by Ms Gilson on 23 June 2025 a bank card in the applicant’s name and a telephone registered in her name, the possession of which was, as it was a second telephone the details of which had not been provided to the police, contrary to the conditions of her bail. The fact that the applicant had been subject to a Community Correction Order, that required her to engage in assessment and treatment for drug and alcohol problems and mental health problems, but that she had not, it seems, committed herself to that process is a concern and gives rise to the possibility that the applicant is not truly motivated to rehabilitate.
In support of her submission that exceptional circumstances test was satisfied, the applicant relied on:
(a)Her traumatic history of vulnerable mental health;
(b)That this has been her first time in custody;
(c)The existence of triable issues in the charges against her;
(d)The fact that she has support of her mother; and, most importantly
(e)The availability of a residential rehabilitation placement at Arrow Health Private Hospital.
I accept that the applicant has had a traumatic history. I have referred to enough of it above. I accept, too, that as a result of these charges the applicant has, for the first time, spend a substantial amount of time in custody, currently just over 103 days. It is of concern that, although the applicant spent approximately one month in custody prior to being granted bail on the 7 April 2025 charges,[7] this was not a sufficiently salutary experience so as to deter her from allegedly reoffending some six weeks later. However, I accept that this total period of time in custody, particularly where it is the first time the applicant has spent a lengthy period on remand, could instil a sense of motivation to rehabilitate.
[7]The applicant was in custody from 17 April 2025 to 13 May 2025, and has been in custody since her arrest on 24 June 2025
Although there are triable issues, the prosecution cases against the applicant cannot be described as weak. The case that she was in some way involved with the 7 April 2025 incidents seems strong, but I accept that there is at least a triable issue on the level of her involvement and whether she was complicit in the acts of violence that took place that day. The case against her in relation to the 23 June 2025 theft of the firearms and other things appears reasonably strong, particularly given that what seems to be the applicant’s bag was taken at the scene and there is CCTV of someone who appears to look like the applicant holding that bag taken at Bunnings not long beforehand. This is a factor to take into account.
I place little weight on the mere fact that the applicant has the support of her mother. Her mother gave evidence and she impressed me as a good person who was trying her best to help her daughter. But the applicant has had the support of her mother for some time now, and it has not prevented the applicant from continuing to abuse drugs or to associate with people who abuse drugs and, if the allegations are correct, engaging in the serious criminal behaviour the subject of the charges.
However, the support of the applicant’s mother has had one very significant consequence. Through her mother’s financial support, the applicant has been able to obtain a place at the Arrow Health Private Hospital in Woodend. Arrow Health specialises in treating people with substance use disorders and other coexisting behavioural and psychiatric conditions. The program offered to the applicant is a 90 day program. Ms Marie Briffa, its intake and assessment manager, gave evidence. She is a counsellor and youth worker and has been with Arrow Health for more than nine years. She interviewed the applicant while the applicant was in custody on 23 July 2025. Ms Briffa also explained about Arrow Health. Although not a secure facility, in the sense that residents are not locked in, it is a facility where residents are required to remain on its campus in Woodend and to follow its rules and routines. It has a structured day from 6:30am to 10:30pm with individual treatment and group activities programmed and is staffed with a combination of psychiatrists and psychologists and other treaters. Its rules include that there be no use of illicit substances and that everyone remain on site and participate in the programs. Use of substances or leaving the site result in an ‘auto exit’. Random drug and alcohol tests are administered at least twice a week. There are checks every two hours, including overnight, that everyone is present and extensive CCTV covering the doors to people’s rooms and each exit. If someone is not present, Arrow Health informs the relevant Informant and the Kyneton police station ‘straightaway’ (although I assume that if someone absconds overnight, the information is not in practice received by the police, in the sense that it is able to be acted upon, until the next morning). Phones or other electronic devices are not permitted, visitors are permitted on Sundays but are thoroughly searched before visiting, and any phone calls are supervised. The idea is to keep the residents removed from the outer world in this way so that they can focus on their recovery.
Arrow Health has had, this year, a total of some 15-20 residents who were there as conditions of bail. Of that cohort, five have been sent back for breaching its rules, but none have absconded. Also, Ms Briffa formed the view that the applicant was ‘motivated’ and had a ‘clear commitment to her recovery and the actions needed to move forward’ and having a ‘genuine willingness to embrace tools and strategies that will support meaningful long-term change’.
Ms Briffa impressed me as a witness and I accept her description of how Arrow Health operates. Further, and although her assessment as to the applicant’s motivation is based on only one session, I accept that the applicant currently has a genuine motivation to seek to rehabilitate, and take the view that her prospects of making genuine progress are much enhanced in a strict residential program like that offered by Arrow Health, compared to any attempts made to rehabilitate ‘in the community’ as it were. I acknowledge that there are largely-unexplained discrepancies in some of the detail of the background given by the applicant to Ms Briffa and to Ms Daniella Kocic, a psychologist who assessed her in June 2024, relating mainly to what happened when and at what age and for how long during her childhood and adolescence, these are not sufficient to cause me to believe that the applicant has deliberately set out to deceive either person or the Court. Arrow Health would allow the applicant time and opportunity to get or now to remain sober, remove her from her old milieu, and provide intensive treatment. Its availability, coupled with the impending charges and recent time on remand, mean there is a real prospect that the present is a moment where the prospects of the applicant making meaningful changes to her life are as high as they are ever likely to be.
Taking all these matters into consideration, and particularly the availability of Arrow Health with its strict rules and processes, which would be the first residential rehabilitation program the applicant has experienced, and that the applicant has no prior history of violent offending, I am satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances that justify the grant of bail.
D Unacceptable risk
As noted above, I must nonetheless refuse bail if satisfied that there is 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.[8] When considering whether a risk of that type is an ‘unacceptable risk’, I must take into account, again, the surrounding circumstances and whether there are any conditions of bail that may be imposed to mitigate the risk so that it is not an unacceptable risk.[9] Here, the concern is the risk that the applicant might if released on bail commit a Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 offence or endanger the safety or welfare of any other person, rather than the risk that she might interfere with a witness or obstruct the administration of justice or fail to answer bail.
[8]Ibid s 4E(1).
[9]Ibid s 4E(3)(a).
I take into account, as I must, that the ‘maximising … the safety of the community and persons affected by crime’ is of ‘overarching importance’, but that this consideration must be weighed alongside ‘the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty’.[10]
[10]Ibid s 1B(1AA)-(1).
While the Informant fairly acknowledged that the applicant’s alleged offending arose out of her substance abuse problems, the respondent emphasised:
(a)The fact that the applicant was subject to a Community Correction Order at the time of the alleged offences and indeed was on bail at the time of the alleged 23 June 2025 offences; and
(b)The violent nature of the 7 April 2025 charges and the presence there of firearms, and the fact that the 23 June 2025 charges involve the theft of numerous firearms which have not been recovered and, the respondent would say, to which the applicant may have access.
In light of these matters, I accept there is, at least at present, an unacceptable risk that the applicant, if released on bail into the community, would endanger the safety or welfare of another person. However, I am not satisfied that this risk remains unacceptable if bail is granted for the period of the planned rehabilitation program and a condition is imposed, as suggested by the applicant, that she reside at Arrow Health and follow its rules and directions. It is true that the applicant could chose to leave Arrow Health and that she would then be at large in the community until such time as she was able to be located and taken back into custody. It is also true that even a few hours ‘head start’, before the police are informed that she had left, could be sufficient time for her to evade easy apprehension. But there is a likelihood, given her present predicament and motivation, and the consequences of her absconding, that she would not abscond from Arrow Health. Further, in deciding whether the risk is unacceptable, the level of risk is to be weighed against all other circumstances including the fact that the applicant has no history of violent offending and has not herself been seen to be carrying any firearms and it is not alleged that she herself personally used or threatened to use firearms in either of the alleged offending events, and there a prospect that if bail is granted the applicant could make real progress towards improving her mental health and changing her life’s trajectory which is in society’s interest more generally. In these circumstances, I am not satisfied that the relevant risk is unacceptable.
E Disposition
I will grant the applicant bail for the duration of her residential treatment program at Arrow Health on conditions directed at ensuring that she:
(a)Reside at Arrow Health at 8 Carlisle Street, Woodend, Victoria;
(b)Comply with all the lawful directions of persons employed or engaged by Arrow Health;
(c)Not contact any co-accused or witnesses other than the Informant;
(d)Notify the Informant at least 24 hours in advance, by telephone and email marked ‘Urgent’, in the event that she intends to leave Arrow Health;
(e)Not possess or use any drugs of dependence;
(f)Not possess any weapons; and
(g)Not leave the State of Victoria.
I will hear from the parties on the precise form of the conditions to be imposed.
0
0
0