Re SH - [2025] VSC 356

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2025 0097

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977
and
IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by SH
between
SH	Applicant
and
VICTORIA POLICE	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Jane Dixon J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	11 June 2025
DATE OF RULING:	13 June 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re SH
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 356

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Charges of theft from motor vehicle, fail to answer bail, aggravated burglary, theft of motor vehicle, theft, attempted aggravated burglary, obtain property by deception, possess methylamphetamine, possess drug of dependence, deal with property suspected of being proceeds of crime – Additional charges of attempted criminal damage by fire (arson), burglary, theft and theft of motor vehicle – Compelling reason – Unacceptable risk – Bail granted – Bail Act 1977 ss 1B, 3AAA, 3A, 4E – Re Singh [2025] VSC 266 – Re Boland [2024] VSC 85.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr J Portelli	James Dowsley & Associates
For the Respondent	Mr P McKimmie	Victoria Police

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

The applicant, a 26 year-old man, applies for bail[1] in respect of the following charges.[2]
[1]The grounds on which the application is made (including any applicable considerations under s 3A of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) (‘the Act’) are: 1) availability of stable address; and 2) availability of bail support services: Notice of Intention to Make an Application for Bail dated 21 May 2025. A further application for bail in respect of the Informant Gladman matters (discussed below) was filed on 13 June 2025.
[2]The table below is taken from the Affidavit in Support, but has been amended to reflect the new ‘next listed’ dates.

At the bail application hearing on 11 June, the respondent tendered an email[3] summarising the indicative status of resolution (or non-resolution) of various outstanding matters against the applicant, and this has been reflected in this ruling by shading those matters where it has been agreed that the applicant will plead guilty and/or the prosecution will withdraw certain charges.

[3]Which became exhibit R5.

Details

Charges and dates of the alleged offending

Bail status

Case number

Informant LEACH

Charge date:

19 April 2024

Remand date:

Next listed:

Dandenong Magistrates’ Court on 1 July 2025 for plea guilty

1. Theft from Motor Vehicle on 18 April 2024; and

2. [Fail to answer bail on 14 May 2024]; and

3. [Fail to answer bail on 19 June 2024][4]

On remand

Q10872761

Informant BUSBY[5]

Charge date:

19 April 2024

Remand date:

Next listed:

Dandenong Magistrates’ Court on 1 July 2025 for plea guilty

1. Aggravated burglary person present on 19 April 2024; and

2. Theft of Motor Vehicle on 19 April 2024; and

3. Theft of Motor Vehicle on 19 April 2024; and

4. Theft on 19 April 2024; and

5. Attempted aggravated burglary on 19 April 2024; and

6. Attempted aggravated burglary on 19 April 2024;…

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 SH

Details

AGLC: Re SH [2025] VSC 356
Case: [2025] VSC 356
Decision Date: 13 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were SH, the applicant, and the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Regulation, the respondent. The applicant was facing multiple charges, including theft from a motor vehicle, failure to answer bail, aggravated burglary, theft of a motor vehicle, theft, attempted aggravated burglary, obtaining property by deception, possession of methylamphetamine, possession of a drug of dependence, and dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime. Additional charges included attempted criminal damage by fire (arson), burglary, theft, and theft of a motor vehicle. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria.

The court was required to determine whether there was a compelling reason to grant bail, considering the severity and nature of the charges against the applicant. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the applicant posed an unacceptable risk to the community if granted bail. The legal principles guiding this decision were outlined in the Bail Act 1977, particularly sections 1B, 3AAA, 3A, and 4E, as well as relevant case law such as Re Singh and Re Boland.

The court examined the seriousness of the charges, the likelihood of the applicant reoffending, and the risk posed to the community. It noted that while the charges were serious, there were compelling reasons to grant bail, including the applicant’s ties to the community, employment, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court concluded that the risk to the community, while significant, was not so unacceptable as to preclude the grant of bail. Therefore, the application for bail was successful.

The final orders of the court were that the applicant, SH, be granted bail subject to specific conditions, including electronic monitoring, a curfew, and regular reporting to the bail supervision officer. The applicant was also required to surrender any travel documents and refrain from contacting certain individuals.

Orders