Re Sewell [2025] VSC 726 | Case summary

In relation to the specific charges the subject of the bail application, the prosecution accepted that there were triable issues concerning the 9 August Charges. Accordingly, its focus was predominantly upon the 31 August Charges which the prosecution submitted provided the gravamen of the allegations.
With respect to the latter, it was submitted that the prosecution had a strong case as the offending was captured on video. It was submitted the absence of witness statements or identified victims does not weaken the case as the offences could be proved by the video evidence.
In distinguishing Sewell from his co-accused insofar as all of whom have been granted bail, the prosecution relied upon Sewell being the head of the Network and being the person who personally led the way of the 30 people in the charge on Camp Sovereignty. It was submitted that he was the initiating force of the attack. It was further submitted that the seriousness of the attack was reflected in the fact that investigators have been able to identify at least 7 victims who were assaulted in some way. Further, although it was not suggested Sewell himself committed the assaults, the injuries suffered by 2 of the victims were emphasised; 1 of whom suffered a bruised left eye and a nasal fracture, and the other required 7 staples in her scalp because of a laceration she suffered. The fact that the attack involved kicking, punching, a person being held down while another person kicked the victim, and the use of a flagpole to hit someone on the head were also highlighted, though again without suggesting Sewell had inflicted those blows.
The prosecution also referred to missiles being thrown, although what in fact was thrown was not particularised.
With respect to Sewell himself, it was submitted there was footage of him using a closed fist to punch someone on the collarbone and that he kicked another victim from the front.
Further, the prosecution said the offending was very serious, with violent disorder carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years. It was submitted that this was not at the lower end of offending with respect to this charge. Further, although this charge was for the "overarching offence", it was submitted that it did not detract from the seriousness of the other charges that concern Sewell personally committing physical assault.
Thus, it was submitted that when the seriousness of the offending was considered, it should not be accepted that any term of imprisonment of Sewell (if he were convicted) would be a short term.
In making this submission, the prosecution referred to the Court of Appeal decision in Director of Public Prosecutions v Sewell.[40] It was contended that the fact that Sewell only received a sentence of 1 month and 7 days for violent disorder and committing and indictable offence whilst on bail on that occasion was not reflective of what he was likely to receive if found guilty with respect to the 31 August Charges.
In distinguishing this earlier case, it was noted the Court of Appeal observed that even at the lower end of seriousness, offences of violent disorders would ordinarily warrant substantial punishment.[41] Further, on this earlier occasion Sewell had the benefit of more than 6 months' imprisonment on remand in extremely harsh conditions being taken into account, as well as a discount on sentence because of the effect of the pandemic on conditions in prison.[42]
In summary, it was submitted that it should not be taken for granted that any sentence that might be imposed would be less than time spent on remand. However, it was accepted that, having regard to current sentencing practices, there was a risk of that occurring.
In submitting that a compelling reason has not been made out, the prosecution submitted that Sewell had not raised any matters that were other than commonplace in bail applications. It was submitted there was nothing out of the ordinary, either individually or collectively, that could show the compelling reason threshold had been met.
On the question of delay, it was accepted that it was likely that 18 to 24 months would elapse before the matter got to trial. However, it was submitted that this delay was not out of the ordinary or unusual and it was consistent with how long it took to get criminal matters to trial presently in this State. Further, it was submitted the fact that there were 13 adult co-accused did not suggest that the matter would take any longer, as it was entirely speculative concerning whether all accused would require the matter to go to trial. In short, it was submitted it was too early to make any assessment about whether this case would be any longer getting to trial than the usual delay involved.
The prosecution relied on Sewell's previous breaches of bail conditions, but very fairly acknowledged his history was not "riddled with bail breaches". It was also fairly conceded that Sewell does not pose a flight risk and that he has never failed to appear whilst on bail.
In the event that Sewell were granted bail, the prosecution agrees the conditions proposed by the applicant ought to be imposed, but suggested additional conditions, namely that Sewell:

Re Sewell [2025] VSC 726 | Case summary | Zoe

In relation to the specific charges the subject of the bail application, the prosecution accepted that there were triable issues concerning the 9 August Charges. Accordingly, its focus was predominantly upon the 31 August Charges which the prosecution submitted provided the gravamen of the allegations.
With respect to the latter, it was submitted that the prosecution had a strong case as the offending was captured on video. It was submitted the absence of witness statements or identified victims does not weaken the case as the offences could be proved by the video evidence.
In distinguishing Sewell from his co-accused insofar as all of whom have been granted bail, the prosecution relied upon Sewell being the head of the Network and being the person who personally led the way of the 30 people in the charge on Camp Sovereignty. It was submitted that he was the initiating force of the attack. It was further submitted that the seriousness of the attack was reflected in the fact that investigators have been able to identify at least 7 victims who were assaulted in some way. Further, although it was not suggested Sewell himself committed the assaults, the injuries suffered by 2 of the victims were emphasised; 1 of whom suffered a bruised left eye and a nasal fracture, and the other required 7 staples in her scalp because of a laceration she suffered. The fact that the attack involved kicking, punching, a person being held down while another person kicked the victim, and the use of a flagpole to hit someone on the head were also highlighted, though again without suggesting Sewell had inflicted those blows.
The prosecution also referred to missiles being thrown, although what in fact was thrown was not particularised.
With respect to Sewell himself, it was submitted there was footage of him using a closed fist to punch someone on the collarbone and that he kicked another victim from the front.
Further, the prosecution said the offending was very serious, with violent disorder carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years. It was submitted that this was not at the lower end of offending with respect to this charge. Further, although this charge was for the "overarching offence", it was submitted that it did not detract from the seriousness of the other charges that concern Sewell personally committing physical assault.
Thus, it was submitted that when the seriousness of the offending was considered, it should not be accepted that any term of imprisonment of Sewell (if he were convicted) would be a short term.
In making this submission, the prosecution referred to the Court of Appeal decision in Director of Public Prosecutions v Sewell.[40] It was contended that the fact that Sewell only received a sentence of 1 month and 7 days for violent disorder and committing and indictable offence whilst on bail on that occasion was not reflective of what he was likely to receive if found guilty with respect to the 31 August Charges.
In distinguishing this earlier case, it was noted the Court of Appeal observed that even at the lower end of seriousness, offences of violent disorders would ordinarily warrant substantial punishment.[41] Further, on this earlier occasion Sewell had the benefit of more than 6 months' imprisonment on remand in extremely harsh conditions being taken into account, as well as a discount on sentence because of the effect of the pandemic on conditions in prison.[42]
In summary, it was submitted that it should not be taken for granted that any sentence that might be imposed would be less than time spent on remand. However, it was accepted that, having regard to current sentencing practices, there was a risk of that occurring.
In submitting that a compelling reason has not been made out, the prosecution submitted that Sewell had not raised any matters that were other than commonplace in bail applications. It was submitted there was nothing out of the ordinary, either individually or collectively, that could show the compelling reason threshold had been met.
On the question of delay, it was accepted that it was likely that 18 to 24 months would elapse before the matter got to trial. However, it was submitted that this delay was not out of the ordinary or unusual and it was consistent with how long it took to get criminal matters to trial presently in this State. Further, it was submitted the fact that there were 13 adult co-accused did not suggest that the matter would take any longer, as it was entirely speculative concerning whether all accused would require the matter to go to trial. In short, it was submitted it was too early to make any assessment about whether this case would be any longer getting to trial than the usual delay involved.
The prosecution relied on Sewell's previous breaches of bail conditions, but very fairly acknowledged his history was not "riddled with bail breaches". It was also fairly conceded that Sewell does not pose a flight risk and that he has never failed to appear whilst on bail.
In the event that Sewell were granted bail, the prosecution agrees the conditions proposed by the applicant ought to be imposed, but suggested additional conditions, namely that Sewell:

[8]

Having considered the matters raised, including the surrounding circumstances, Sewell has established that a compelling reason exists that justifies the grant of bail. Although all the circumstances are relevant, there are some principal matters that lead to this conclusion.
Sewell has already spent 72 days in custody in relation to the charges relevant to this application. It was common ground that Sewel's trial may not commence for up to 2 years. Although on the evidence available on this application I am in no position to make any meaningful assessment about the strength of the case against him on any of the charges, it was not disputed that there were triable issues with respect to the 9 August Charges. Further, in relation to the 31 August Charges, while I am not in any way diminishing the seriousness of the allegations, it seems highly likely there will be triable issues. These will include the basis upon which the prosecution could establish Sewell was complicit in each of the assaults committed by others that have given rise to the charges.
As the prosecution correctly accepted, there is a real risk that any term of imprisonment if Sewell were to be found guilty would be less than the period of time he would spend on remand if bail were not granted.
Further, Sewell has difficult conditions to endure while he is in custody. This is another key reason why a compelling reason has been established, noting that Sewell is presumed to be innocent. The Court of Appeal has already acknowledged the "extremely onerous conditions" Sewell is subjected to when in custody on remand.[43]
It is also important that Sewell has stable accommodation available to him, something he did not have the benefit of in more recent times before being arrested. Further, his family situation, including the need for his 2 young children to be cared for, weigh in favour of a compelling reason having been established.
The matters I am about to refer to with respect to risk also support a finding of a compelling reason for granting bail.

[9]

In relation to whether or not Sewell poses an unacceptable risk of committing particular offences identified in the Bail Act [44] or otherwise endangering the safety or welfare of any other person, whether by committing an offence that has that effect or by any other means, the question needs to be considered in light of both the proposed strict bail conditions and the further conditions that will be imposed on Sewell if bail is granted.
The likelihood of Sewell complying with his conditions of bail is significantly increased by the severe consequences he will suffer if he fails to comply. This is not only because he will again be in custody on remand for the present charges in onerous conditions, but also because it has repercussions with respect to the existing community correction order that he will be required to comply with if he is granted bail. These heightened consequences are escalated even further because of the bank guarantee that his fiancée has agreed to provide. The evidence demonstrates that it would cause significant financial hardship to his fiancée if she were required to forfeit the sum that has been offered.
While it is acknowledged that Sewell has breached some of his bail conditions in the past, on the whole, he has demonstrated an ability to comply with such conditions for an extended period of time. This includes never failing to report as required and also never failing to attend court as scheduled.
Of particular significance is the fact that Sewell has volunteered to agree to a condition not to attend the Melbourne central business district or be within the vicinity of King's Domain. As correctly identified by his senior counsel, Sewell's offending has largely arisen as a result of being in public places with others. Given his proposed residence is in the outer suburbs of Melbourne, and that he will not be able to associate with any co-accused, the risk that Sewell would otherwise pose absent these conditions is materially diminished.
Further, Sewell has responsibilities as a father which he will not be able to meet if he breaches his bail conditions. Although his young children were already present in his life when the alleged offending the subject of the relevant charges occurred, he has now had the salutary experience of being away from them for a significant period of time. He has also heard from his partner the stress he has caused to both her and their elder child because of his prolonged absence.
In all the circumstances, taking into account the surrounding circumstances and the strict bail conditions that will be ordered, the prosecution has not established that Sewell poses an unacceptable risk if bail is granted.

Re Sewell [2025] VSC 726 (13 November 2025)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (51 paragraphs)

Legislation Cited (4)

Cases Cited (1)