Re TQ

Case [2025] VSC 82 7 March 2025

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 2025 0024

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by TQ

---

JUDGE:	Elliott J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARINGS:	28 February, 7 March 2025
DATES OF RULINGS:	28 February, 7 March 2025
DATE OF REASONS:	7 March 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re TQ
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 82

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Applicant charged with Schedule 2 offence –Requirement to demonstrate compelling reason – Applicant is Aboriginal – Nature and seriousness of alleged offending – Strength of prosecution case – Extent of compliance with earlier grants of bail – Whether time on remand likely to exceed any term of imprisonment – Limited criminal history – Personal circumstances – Availability of stable accommodation – Availability of culturally appropriate supports and treatment – Compelling reason demonstrated – Whether unacceptable risk – Risk not shown to be unacceptable if bail granted for 1 week on strict conditions – Bail granted for 1 week – Compliance with all conditions during 1 week period of bail – Further application for bail – Further application not opposed by the respondent – Further application granted – Bail Act 1977 (Vic), ss 1B, 3A, 3AAA, 4AA, 4C, 4D, 4E, 5AAA, 5AAAA, 30.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the applicant	J Moore	Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service
For the respondent	P Murphy (solicitor)	Victoria Police

HIS HONOUR:

A. Introduction

A.1 Matters leading up to initial application for bail heard on 28 February 2025

The applicant (“TQ”)[1] was arrested on 9 December 2024 and charged with the following offences:
(1)Intentionally damaging property by fire (arson), contrary to section 197(6) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic),[2] alleged to have been committed on 3 November 2024 (“the Informant Harding Charge”).
(2)Contravention of a family violence intervention order, contrary to section 123(2) of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic), alleged to have been committed on 30 November 2024 (“the Informant Von Tunk Charge”).
(3)Intentionally damaging property, contrary to section 197(1) of the Crimes Act, alleged to been committed on 30 November 2024 (“the Informant Gear Charge”).
(4)Recklessly causing injury, contrary to section 18 of the Crimes Act and aggravated assault, contrary to section 24(2) of the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic), each alleged to have been committed on 2 December 2024 (together, “the Informant Pitt Charges”).
[1]A pseudonym has been used to protect the identity of a person named in an order made under the Family Violence Protection Act and to ensure compliance with s 166 of that Act.
[2]The charge sheet provided to the court referred to the charge of criminal damage by fire (arson) being brought under section 197(1) of the Crimes Act.
On 10 December 2024, TQ was released by police on bail to attend the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria at Mildura on 13 December 2024 in respect of the Informant Von Tunk Charge.…

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 TQ

Details

AGLC: Re TQ [2025] VSC 82
Case: [2025] VSC 82
Decision Date: 7 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re TQ involved an application for bail for the applicant, TQ, who was charged with an offence listed in Schedule 2 of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic). The application was heard in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria, where TQ sought to be released on bail pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings against him. The primary issue before the court was whether TQ had demonstrated a compelling reason to justify his release on bail, considering the nature and seriousness of the alleged offence, the strength of the prosecution's case, and other relevant factors.

The court examined whether TQ's time on remand was likely to exceed any term of imprisonment he may receive if convicted, his limited criminal history, his personal circumstances, and the availability of stable accommodation and culturally appropriate supports and treatment. The court found that TQ had demonstrated a compelling reason to be released on bail, primarily due to his personal circumstances and the availability of culturally appropriate supports and treatment. The prosecution did not establish that the risk of TQ reoffending or failing to appear in court was unacceptable if bail was granted for one week on strict conditions.

Consequently, the court granted bail for one week, imposing strict conditions to mitigate any potential risk. Following compliance with the conditions during the initial period of bail, TQ made a further application for bail, which was not opposed by the respondent. The court granted the further application, and TQ was released on bail. The decision was made under the provisions of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic), specifically sections 1B, 3A, 3AAA, 4AA, 4C, 4D, 4E, 5AAA, 5AAAA, and 30.

Orders