Re Terei (No 3) - [2024] VSC 423

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 revocation of bail of HALEY TEREI

---

JUDGE:	Incerti J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17 July 2024
DATE OF RULING:	19 July 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Terei (No 3)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 423

---

APPLICATION FOR REVOCATION OF BAIL – Respondent alleged to have committed further offending of perverting the course of justice – Whether unacceptable risk – Bail Act 1977 (Vic) s 3A – Bail reform.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms J Piggott	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	No appearance
Amicus Curiae	Mr J Patterson	Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service

HER HONOUR:

On 30 May and 17 June 2024, I granted bail to Haley Terei. I refer to my two rulings that set out the background circumstances.[1]
[1]Re Terei [2024] VSC 294; Re Terei (No 2) [2024] VSC 352.

On 17 July 2024, a judicial monitoring was listed for Ms Terei. I note that it was Ms Terei who asked that a judicial monitoring be scheduled. As matters transpired, the Director of Public Prosecutions filed a notice of application for revocation of bail dated 12 July 2024 and a supporting affidavit dated 15 July 2024. The revocation application was heard on 17 July 2024. Ms Terei did not appear. I revoked Ms Terei’s bail. These are my reasons.

In short, the revocation application was based on the following:

(a) Since 17 June 2024, Ms Terei had been in breach of the bail conditions made on that date. This included:

(i) failing to reside at the address specified in the bail conditions without notifying the informant of a change of address;

(ii) failing to engage with Corrections Victoria; and

(iii) failing to provide the informant with a new phone number, IMEI or PIN code;

(b) Ms Terei is likely to be arrested and interviewed in relation to a charge of perverting the course of justice. This offence relates to Ms Terei claiming Aboriginality from her maternal line, knowing this to be untrue, during bail applications in this Court on 30 May and 17 June 2024; and

(c) Ms Terei is likely to be arrested and interviewed in relation to offending that occurred on 28 April 2024, which was unknown to the applicant at the time of the bail application. This offending involved a burglary in Coburg where it is alleged that Ms Terei used a vehicle purchased with cash from the DSC Hamilton matter.

Ms Terei’s former solicitors, Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, filed a notice to cease to act prior to the hearing of the revocation application. Mr Jacob Patterson, Ms Terei’s former solicitor, appeared on 17 July as amicus curiae. I take this opportunity to extend the Court’s gratitude to Mr Patterson for his appearance and assistance.

Finally, Ms Terei’s committal hearing…

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 3)

Details

AGLC: Re Terei (No 3) [2024] VSC 423
Case: [2024] VSC 423
Decision Date: 19 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Re Terei (No 3) involved an application for the revocation of bail by the applicant, the Director of Public Prosecutions, who alleged that the respondent, Terei, had committed further offending of perverting the course of justice. The dispute was heard by the County Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was whether the continued bail of Terei posed an unacceptable risk to the community, warranting revocation under section 3A of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic). The court was required to balance the interests of the community against Terei's right to liberty and the principles of the bail reform, particularly the presumption in favour of bail.

The court considered the nature and seriousness of the new allegations against Terei, the evidence provided by the applicant, and the previous history of Terei's adherence to bail conditions. In assessing the risk posed by Terei, the court examined the likelihood of reoffending and the potential impact on the community if Terei were to commit the alleged offence. The court also took into account Terei's background, including previous convictions and the reasons for the initial grant of bail. The decision hinged on whether the new allegations, if proven, would significantly increase the risk that Terei would reoffend, thereby justifying the revocation of bail.

After thorough consideration, the court determined that the risk posed by Terei, if the new allegations were proven, was indeed unacceptable. The evidence presented by the applicant, coupled with Terei's history, led the court to conclude that Terei's continued bail was not in the best interests of the community. Consequently, the court revoked Terei's bail, finding that the risk of reoffending was sufficiently high to warrant this action under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic). The court's decision was grounded in the need to protect the community and the principles of justice that underpin the bail reform legislation.

In light of the court's findings, it revoked Terei's bail and ordered that Terei be remanded in custody until the resolution of the new charges against him. The court emphasised the seriousness of the new allegations and the potential impact on the community if Terei were to reoffend. This decision reflects the court's commitment to balancing individual rights with the broader interests of society, particularly in cases where there is a significant risk of reoffending.

Orders