Re Terei (No 2) - [2024] VSC 352

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:	17 June 2024
DATE OF RULING:	21 June 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Terei (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 352

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail application – Re Terei [2024] VSC 294 – Drug addiction – Compliance with bail conditions – Whether unacceptable risk – Family violence – Applicant identifies as Aboriginal – Bail Act 1977 (Vic) s 30A – Bail reform.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms R Khan	Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service
For the Respondent	Mr E Fryar	Office of Public Prosecutions

HER HONOUR:

On 30 May 2024, I granted bail to Haley Terei for a limited period of two weeks, on stringent conditions.

Ms Terei appeared before the Court on 17 June 2024, at which time I was to decide whether to extend Ms Terei’s bail. I extended bail for Ms Terei. These are my reasons.

I refer to my earlier ruling Re Terei [2024] VSC 294 for the background circumstances to this matter.

The only issue for consideration in Ms Terei’s application for bail was whether she posed an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety and welfare of any other person, failing to answer bail, or interfering with a witness or otherwise obstructing the course of justice.

On the return of this application, the respondent confirmed that they opposed any extension of Ms Terei’s bail. The respondent filed an affidavit in opposition dated 17 June 2024. The informant’s report exhibited to the affidavit revealed the following:

(a) On 4 June 2024, Ms Donna Wells emailed the police stating that Ms Terei was ‘definitely back on the drugs and was arguing with family/daughter’. Consequently, Ms Wells had asked Ms Terei to leave her residence on 3 June 2024, and did not want her to come back to the house;[1]
[1]Ms Wells gave evidence at the bail hearing on 30 May 2024 that Ms Terei could reside at her property in Heidelberg Heights. This was a condition of Ms Terei’s bail.

(b) On 6 June 2024, Ms Terei’s solicitor, Mr Jacob Patterson, informed the respondent that Ms Terei was experiencing family violence. He explained that this was the reason for her no longer residing at her designated bail address, not that she was showing a disregard for her bail conditions;

(c) The informant was notified that Ms Terei failed to attend drug testing on 7 June 2024 as directed, and did not contact Corrections in relation to the non-attendance;

(d) Ms Terei attended her first drug counselling appointment with Banyule Community Health on 12 June 2024; and

(e) Ms Terei failed to attend a supervision appointment at South Morang Community Correctional Services (‘CCS’) on 13 June 2024, and did not contact Corrections in relation to the…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Re Terei (No 2) [2024] VSC 352
Case: [2024] VSC 352
Decision Date: 21 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Terei, heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, involved an application for bail by the applicant, Terei, who was facing drug-related charges. The central dispute centred on whether the risk posed by the applicant warranted continued detention or if bail could be granted with appropriate conditions to ensure public safety and compliance with the law. Given the history of family violence and drug addiction associated with the applicant, the court had to balance the rights of the accused against the need to protect the community.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant’s history of drug addiction and family violence constituted an unacceptable risk under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic), and whether bail conditions could be formulated to mitigate such risks. The court had to consider the principles of the Bail Act, particularly section 30A, which addresses the balance between the presumption of innocence and the need for public safety. The applicant, who identifies as Aboriginal, also brought into consideration the broader context of systemic issues affecting Indigenous Australians within the criminal justice system.

The court examined the applicant's extensive history of drug addiction and the associated risks, including reoffending and potential harm to others, especially in the context of family violence. The judge weighed the seriousness of the charges against the applicant's potential to comply with bail conditions. Despite the risks, the court found that tailored bail conditions, including mandatory drug treatment and strict supervision, could sufficiently mitigate the risks to the community. The court held that the presumption of innocence was not to be lightly overridden and granted the application for bail subject to stringent conditions.

The final orders included strict bail conditions aimed at ensuring compliance with drug treatment programs and regular reporting to authorities. The court emphasised the importance of addressing the underlying issues of addiction and family violence to prevent reoffending and protect the community.

Orders