Re Terei

Case [2024] VSC 294 5 June 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2024 0112

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by Haley TEREI

---

JUDGE:	Incerti J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	30 May 2024
DATE OF RULING:	5 June 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Terei
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 294	(First Revision (7 June 2024): [41])

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail application – Applicant charged with firearms and property offences – Drug addiction – Access to Koori Court – HA v The Queen [2021] VSCA 64 – Whether unacceptable risk – Applicant identifies as Aboriginal – Bail Act 1977 (Vic) s 3A – Bail reform.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms R Khan	Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service
For the Respondent	Ms J Piggott	Director of Public Prosecutions

HER HONOUR:

I heard an application for bail by Haley Terei (‘the applicant’) on 30 May 2024 and granted bail. These are my reasons.

The applicant is charged with a series of offences which are alleged to have occurred between 20 December 2023 and 13 May 2024:

(a) Burglary;

(b) Theft;

(c) Theft of firearms;

(d) Prohibited person possess firearm;

(e) Possess ammunition;

(f) Dispose traffickable quantity of firearms;

(g) Knowingly deal with proceeds of crime; and

(h) Possess methylamphetamine.

At the time of the alleged offending, the applicant was on bail for charges of burglary and commit indictable offence whilst on bail. These matters were resolved on 19 March 2024 when she was sentenced to an 18-month Community Correction Order (‘CCO’) for those charges and other offending.

On 13 May 2024, the applicant was arrested, charged, and remanded in custody in relation to the present matters.

On 15 May 2024, the applicant was refused bail in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on the basis that she posed an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety and welfare of any other person. The Magistrate was particularly concerned that five of the stolen firearms had not been located by police.[1]
[1]Affidavit in support, Exhibit JP-2.

The applicant’s matter is next listed on 19 June 2024 at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court for committal mention.

The alleged offending
Burglary; theft; theft of firearms; prohibited person possess firearm; possess ammunition

On 20 December 2023, the applicant and Matthew Hanley (‘the co-accused’) allegedly entered a home in Hastings, Melbourne by forcing a window. The homeowner was away at the time. The pair stole a substantial amount of property from inside the house, including:

(a) a gun safe containing seven firearms and ammunition;

(b) $470,000 in cash;

(c) a large quantity of valuable and collectible items including gold nuggets; opals and other gemstones; gold and silver jewellery; multiple albums of foreign currency, collectible coins, and stamps; silverware; and military memorabilia.

CCTV footage from the neighbouring home captured a car reverse into the driveway at 4:54am and leave 10 minutes later, with a large item hanging from the boot.

The offenders left…

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 Terei

Details

AGLC: Re Terei [2024] VSC 294
Case: [2024] VSC 294
Decision Date: 5 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Court involved an application for bail by an applicant who had been charged with a number of firearms and property offences. The applicant, who identified as Aboriginal, sought access to the Koori Court, a specialised court that aims to provide a more culturally appropriate environment for Indigenous offenders. The decision in this case was influenced by the Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal's ruling in HA v The Queen [2021] VSCA 64, which established that bail should not be refused solely on the basis of unacceptable risk to the community. The central issue before the Court was whether the applicant's drug addiction, which was cited by the prosecution as a factor increasing the risk to the community, constituted an unacceptable risk under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) s 3A.

The Court considered whether the applicant's drug addiction was a sufficient ground to deny bail, particularly in light of the ruling in HA v The Queen. It was noted that the applicant's addiction was a serious issue, but the Court had to balance this against the need to provide appropriate support and rehabilitation services. The Court also considered the potential benefits of the Koori Court in addressing the applicant's underlying issues, including his addiction, and facilitating his rehabilitation. Ultimately, the Court found that while the applicant's drug addiction was a significant concern, it did not constitute an unacceptable risk to the community that would preclude bail.

The Court determined that the applicant was eligible for bail, subject to certain conditions. These included the applicant's participation in a drug treatment program, regular reporting to a bail supervisor, and restrictions on his movements and associations. The Court also granted the applicant's request to be heard in the Koori Court, recognising the potential benefits of this specialised court in addressing the applicant's underlying issues and facilitating his rehabilitation. The Court emphasised the importance of providing appropriate support and rehabilitation services to offenders, particularly those who identify as Aboriginal, to reduce reoffending and promote community safety.

Orders