Re Tresize - [2025] VSC 413

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2025 0104

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by Allan Tresize

---

JUDGE:	TINNEY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 June 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	24 June 2025
DATE OF REASONS:	9 July 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Tresize
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 413

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Armed robbery (x2) of retail premises and numerous other dishonesty and other offences – Applicant a 43 year old Aboriginal man with history of long-term drug addiction and various other difficult personal circumstances – History of homelessness – Long criminal history – Poor compliance with previous grants of bail – Proposal that the applicant, if bailed, would reside at Odyssey House - Show compelling reason test – Combination of factors relied upon - Compelling reason made out - Whether unacceptable risk – Real prospect that applicant would commit Schedule 1 or 2 offences, endanger the public, or fail to answer bail – Unacceptable risk established – Bail refused – Bail Act 1977 ss 1B, 3AAA, 3A, 4AA, 4A and 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr R Bhattacharya	Fitzroy Legal Service
For the Respondent	Mr R Mallia	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The applicant applied for bail in respect of 60 charges,[1] for which he had been remanded since 21 January 2025. [2] A previous application for bail was refused in the Melbourne Magistrate’s Court on 26 May 2025 by Magistrate Sonnett. The charges for which the applicant sought bail included charges of theft (x23), burglary (x7), handling stolen goods (x2), obtaining property by deception (x10), negligently dealing with proceeds of crime (x3), unlawful assault and assault with a weapon. Most of the theft charges concerned numerous occasions on which it was alleged that the applicant had stolen bottles of whisky or other spirits from bottle shops including Dan Murphy’s and BWS. The burglary charges generally concerned unlawful entry into bottle shops or other commercial premises. However, of particular relevance to this application and the question of assessment of risk were two armed robbery charges. The applicant also applied for bail on charges of possessing a controlled weapon (x2), criminal damage (x2), committing an indictable offence whilst on bail (x2), possessing cannabis, making a threat to inflict serious injury, failing to answer bail, and contravening a community correction order (‘CCO’). [3]
[1]Not including 10 charges which the Affidavit in Support of 3 June 2025, indicates are ‘to be withdrawn’.
[2]The applicant was previously granted bail on 17 January 2024 for some of these matters, but then charged with four burglary charges (one to be withdrawn; Informant Santoro matters) on 21 January 2025 and remanded on that date, with bail revoked on all outstanding matters.
[3]Contrary to Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 83AD.

The applicant is a Yorta Yorta and Gunditjmara man, who, at…

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 Tresize

Details

AGLC: Re Tresize [2025] VSC 413
Case: [2025] VSC 413
Decision Date: 24 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re Tresize, the applicant faced multiple charges of armed robbery and other serious offences. The applicant, a 43-year-old Aboriginal man, had a long history of drug addiction and homelessness, coupled with a substantial criminal record. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant met the criteria for bail under the Bail Act 1977, considering his history and the nature of the alleged crimes. The court had to assess if there was a compelling reason for granting bail and whether there was an unacceptable risk that the applicant would commit further offences, endanger the public, or fail to appear in court.

The court examined the applicant's personal history, including his drug addiction, homelessness, and poor compliance with previous bail conditions. Despite the proposal that the applicant would reside at Odyssey House, a facility aimed at assisting individuals with similar backgrounds, the court found that the applicant's past conduct demonstrated a significant risk of reoffending. The court considered the "compelling reason" test and the combination of factors, including the seriousness of the offences and the applicant's criminal history. Ultimately, the court determined that a compelling reason for bail was made out but also concluded that the risk of the applicant committing further offences, endangering the public, or failing to appear in court was unacceptable.

As a result of the court's findings, the application for bail was refused. The court's decision was based on the balance between the compelling reasons for granting bail and the unacceptable risk posed by the applicant. The court emphasised the need to protect the public and ensure that justice was served in light of the serious nature of the alleged offences.

Orders