Re Wells - [2025] VSC 526

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2025 0189

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by CHRISTOPHER WELLS

---

JUDGE:	Kaye JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	26 August 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 August 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Wells
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 526

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Bail application — Applicant charged with two charges of intentionally damaging property by fire — Applicant prima facie entitled to bail — Whether unacceptable risk of endangering the safety and welfare of others if granted bail — Whether unacceptable risk applicant will fail to answer bail — Applicant Aboriginal person — Intellectual disability — Significant mental health issues — Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 1B, 3AAA, 3A, 4, and 4E, considered.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr A Malik	James Dowsley & Associates
For the Respondent	Mr A Singh	Victoria Police

HIS HONOUR:

The applicant is subject to two charges of intentionally damaging property by fire contrary to s 197 (1) of the Crimes Act 1958. The offences are alleged to have been committed on 23 January 2025 and 29 April 2025 respectively.
The applicant was arrested on 13 May 2025 and remanded into custody. On 6 August 2025, he made an unsuccessful application for bail in the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court. The application was refused on the ground that there was an unacceptable risk that he would endanger the safety or welfare of other persons and that he would fail to surrender into custody in accordance with the conditions of his bail. He now applies to this Court for bail.

Background to offending

The applicant is 37 years of age, having been born in Hobart on 27 October 1987. He is an Aboriginal man of the Palawa people. At the age of seven years, he was taken into care. During his childhood, he experienced multiple foster placements across north and northwest Tasmania. Throughout his life he has experienced significant trauma and instability.
The applicant has been and is engaged with the National Disability Insurance Scheme (‘NDIS’) with a significant number of impairments which have been diagnosed to include: an intellectual disability; an acquired brain injury; a Schizoaffective Disorder; an Antisocial Personality Disorder; and a Substance Abuse Disorder.
The alleged offending
At the time of the alleged offending, the applicant was residing in his NDIS-funded residential facility at 4 Wallaroo Way, Doreen (‘the premises’).
At the time of the first offence, on 23 January 2025, he was living at the premises with his carer, Komalprett Kaur (‘K Kaur’). On that day, the applicant attended the local shops and attempted to withdraw money using his bankcard in order to purchase methylamphetamine. The transaction was declined. As a result, the applicant returned to the premises in an angry mood. He asked to use K Kaur’s telephone. When K Kaur refused, he became more angry.
At approximately 12:40pm, 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 Wells

Details

AGLC: Re Wells [2025] VSC 526
Case: [2025] VSC 526
Decision Date: 28 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the County Court of Victoria, the case of Re Wells involved the applicant, Mr. Wells, who applied for bail while facing two charges of intentionally damaging property by fire. The court was tasked with determining whether the applicant was prima facie entitled to bail, and if so, whether there were any reasons that would make it inappropriate to grant bail. Specifically, the court considered whether the applicant posed an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety and welfare of others, or whether there was an unacceptable risk that he would fail to answer bail. Mr. Wells, an Aboriginal person with an intellectual disability and significant mental health issues, was the subject of these considerations under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic). The court needed to weigh the statutory criteria for bail against the potential risks associated with his release.

The primary legal issues the court needed to resolve were the criteria set out in sections 1B, 3AAA, 3A, 4, and 4E of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic). The court assessed whether Mr. Wells was prima facie entitled to bail by examining the nature and seriousness of the offences, the circumstances in which they were committed, and the likelihood of his attendance at court. Additionally, the court considered the criteria in section 4 of the Act, which addresses the risk of endangering the safety and welfare of others, and section 4E, which pertains to the risk of failing to answer bail. These assessments were crucial in determining whether Mr. Wells should be granted bail or remain in custody.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that Mr. Wells was prima facie entitled to bail. However, it also concluded that there was an unacceptable risk that he would fail to answer bail, primarily due to his intellectual disability and mental health issues. The court noted that while Mr. Wells had support networks, including family and mental health professionals, these were not deemed sufficient to mitigate the risk of him failing to appear in court. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion under the Bail Act to refuse bail, balancing the statutory criteria with the specific circumstances of the applicant. This decision reflects the court's duty to consider both the rights of the accused and the safety of the community.

The final orders of the court were to refuse the application for bail, thereby keeping Mr. Wells in custody until his matter is further heard. The court's decision underscored the importance of individualised assessments in bail applications, particularly when dealing with applicants who have complex needs and vulnerabilities.

Orders