Re Scott (Bail Application) - [2025] VSC 607

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2025 0223

MADELEINE SCOTT	Applicant
v
VICTORIA POLICE	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Gorton J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23 September 2025
DATE OF RULING:	24 September 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Scott (Bail Application)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 607

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Where applicant is charged with drug trafficking, possessing various drugs of dependence and driving dangerously in suburban areas while pursued by police – Where applicant already on bail and subject to community corrections order for Schedule 2 offences – Whether exceptional circumstances exist – Where applicant is eight months pregnant with her first child – Where pregnancy has complications and is associated with additional stressors in custody – Where applicant is able to access appropriate antenatal treatment in custody – Where period of remand unlikely to exceed any sentence imposed – Where applicant has access to stable accommodation and other supports in the community – Exceptional circumstances established – Whether applicant poses unacceptable risk – Where applicant has access to mental health and drug treatments support in the community – Where applicant has demonstrated a willingness to act unlawfully even while under supervision by relevant authorities – Where applicant submits she will not revert to her drug lifestyle because of her pregnancy – Where applicant has told falsehoods about her drug use to supervising authorities and drug treatment supports – Where foetus is not ‘other person’ for purpose of assessing unacceptable risk of endangering safety or welfare of any other person, but future child is – Unacceptable risk of committing Schedule 2 offence – Unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of any other person – Bail denied - R v Boulton (2014) 46 VR 308 – Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 3AAA, 4A, 4E – Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic) s 38.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr Michael Stanton SC	Law and Advocacy Centre for Women
For the Respondent	Ms Jennifer McGarvie	Victoria Police

Contents

A.. Introduction

B.. The applicant’s background.

C.. The applicant’s criminal history

D.. Events since her release from custody on 14 January 2025

E... The legal tests

F... Are there exceptional circumstances?

G.. Unacceptable risk

H.. Disposition

HIS HONOUR:

A Introduction

Madeleine Scott, the applicant, is a 28 year old woman who is pregnant with her first child and has been remanded in custody since 17 August 2025. She now applies for bail on charges for offences alleged to have been committed on 21 July 2025 and 17 August 2025. The applicant is already on bail for charges for offences alleged to have been committed on 13 April 2025 though, I am told, there is an application to revoke bail on those charges before the Magistrates’ Court. She is also subject to a community correction order which expires on 13 July 2026.

B The applicant’s background.

The applicant has a history of exposure to…

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 Scott (Bail Application)

Details

AGLC: Re Scott (Bail Application) [2025] VSC 607
Case: [2025] VSC 607
Decision Date: 24 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Ms Scott, was before the court on an application for bail, charged with drug trafficking, possession of various drugs of dependence, and dangerous driving while pursued by police. Ms Scott was already on bail and subject to a community corrections order for Schedule 2 offences. The court was required to determine whether exceptional circumstances existed for granting bail and whether Ms Scott posed an unacceptable risk of committing further offences or endangering the safety or welfare of any other person. The court also needed to consider the potential impact of her eight-month pregnancy on the assessment of risk.

The court acknowledged that Ms Scott’s pregnancy, which had complications and was associated with additional stressors in custody, constituted exceptional circumstances warranting consideration for bail. Despite these circumstances, the court found that Ms Scott posed an unacceptable risk of committing Schedule 2 offences and endangering the safety or welfare of any other person. The court noted her willingness to act unlawfully even while under supervision, her history of providing false information to supervising authorities and drug treatment supports, and the likelihood that the period of remand would not exceed any sentence imposed. The court was not satisfied that Ms Scott would not revert to her previous drug lifestyle due to her pregnancy, and it found that the future child would be at risk if bail were granted.

The court denied bail based on the unacceptable risk Ms Scott posed of committing further offences and endangering the safety or welfare of any other person. The court considered the relevant provisions of the Bail Act 1977 and the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984, applying the principles from R v Boulton (2014) 46 VR 308. The court noted that the foetus was not an "other person" for the purpose of assessing risk, but the future child would be. Consequently, the court concluded that the risk to the future child warranted the denial of bail.

Orders