Re Singh - [2025] VSC 266

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2025 0076

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

- and -

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by SHIV KARAN SINGH

---

JUDGE:	Tinney J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	9 May 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	14 May 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Singh
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 266

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Charges including stalking and making a threat to kill – Show compelling reason test – Victim of alleged offending a work colleague of sister of applicant, towards whom he developed an infatuation – Letter delivered to complainant on behalf of applicant in which he claimed to be a member of Australian Federal Police – Numerous Instagram messages then sent by applicant to complainant from his sister’s account – Further threatening messages sent to another work colleague of complainant - Applicant relied upon a combination of matters, including young age and lack of criminal history in proof of compelling reason - Compelling reason established by applicant – Respondent failed to demonstrate unacceptable risk – Risk capable of being mitigated by strict conditions – Bail granted – Bail Act 1977 ss 1B, 3AAA(1), 4C-4E, 4AA, 5AAA and Schedule 2.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms Josephine McColl, Solicitor Advocate	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Respondent	Mr J.J. Jassar, Solicitor Advocate	Victoria Police Legal Practice Group

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The applicant applies for bail in respect of eight charges laid by Constable Taylor, for offences allegedly committed between 27 March – 3 April this year. The alleged offences are making a threat to kill,[1] stalking,[2] using a carriage service to menace (x2),[3] impersonating police (x2),[4] falsifying documents,[5] and possessing a drug of dependence. [6]
[1]Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 20 (‘Crimes Act’).
[2]Ibid s 21A.
[3]Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) Sch 1.
[4]Victoria Police Act 2013 (Vic) s 256(1).
[5]Crimes Act (n 1) s 83A.
[6]Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic) s 73.

The parties agree that the correct test for this application pursuant to the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) (‘the Act’) is the ‘show compelling reason test’,[7] as the applicant is charged with an indictable offence (namely, making a threat to kill), in the course of which he is alleged to have threatened to use a firearm. [8]
[7]Bail Act 1977 (Vic) s 4C (‘The Act’).
[8]Ibid s 4C; s 4AA(3); Schedule 2 Item 23.

Procedural history

The applicant has been refused bail by magistrates on two previous occasions in April this year.

The matter is next listed for contest mention on 16 June 2025. If this application for bail is refused, the applicant will have spent 76 days on remand by that date.

The alleged offending

Other than the possession charge, these charges relate to a series of actions which the applicant took in seeking to pursue…

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 Singh

Details

AGLC: Re Singh [2025] VSC 266
Case: [2025] VSC 266
Decision Date: 14 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re Singh, the applicant sought bail in the face of charges including stalking and making a threat to kill. The matter was heard in the Magistrates Court of Victoria. The applicant, a young person with no prior criminal history, faced serious charges related to stalking and threatening a work colleague of his sister, whom he had developed an infatuation with. The alleged offending included the delivery of a letter on behalf of the Australian Federal Police and numerous Instagram messages from his sister’s account, as well as threatening messages sent to another work colleague of the complainant.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had established a compelling reason for bail under section 3AAA(1) of the Bail Act 1977, and if so, whether there were any conditions that could mitigate the risk posed by his release. The applicant argued that his youth, lack of criminal history, and ties to the community provided a compelling reason for bail. The respondent contended that the serious nature of the charges and the risk to the complainant warranted continued detention.

The court found that the applicant had established a compelling reason for bail, considering his age, lack of criminal history, and the presence of strict bail conditions that could mitigate the risk. The court emphasised that the risk posed by the applicant’s release could be adequately managed through strict bail conditions, including electronic monitoring, curfew, and communication restrictions. Consequently, the court granted bail, outlining specific conditions to ensure the safety of the complainant and the community.

The final orders included the applicant’s release on bail, subject to electronic monitoring, a curfew, and restrictions on communication with the complainant and her colleagues. The applicant was also required to surrender his passport and refrain from entering certain areas. The court’s decision underscored the importance of balancing the interests of the applicant with the need to protect the complainant and the community.

Orders