In Re Terei (No 3) [2024] VSC 423 Incerti J has addressed a bail revocation application, stating that
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 ...
[6] There is in many ways nothing remarkable about this course of events. Ms Terei is a vulnerable person who presents to the Court with complex mental health issues, a history of family violence, serious drug abuse and a significant history of interface with the justice system. Her historical offending does not involve crimes of violence. Ms Terei was always going to pose a risk on bail, but it was my view that the risk could be ameliorated with strict bail conditions.\
[7] The unusual and troubling aspect is the allegation that Ms Terei has attempted to pervert the course of justice by lying about her Aboriginality.
[8] Section 3 of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) relevantly provides that: Aboriginal person means a person who – (a) is descended from an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander; and (b) identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander; and (c) is accepted as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander by an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Island community;
[9] Before this Court there was evidence by way of affidavit that Ms Terei inherited her Aboriginality from her maternal line and that her mother passed away when she was three years old. This evidence was obtained on instructions from Ms Terei.
[10] In most cases, and certainly in my experience, proof of Aboriginality has not been an issue and is ordinarily not challenged. Evidence of a person’s Aboriginality is provided by affidavit as occurred in this case. This is an appropriate manner in which evidence of this kind is to be provided to the Court for the purpose of a bail application. I can see no reason why this should change or that an applicant or their legal representative should be required to do anything more than set out the basis of a person’s Aboriginality as was done in this case. The circumstances of this case are unique and allegedly involve blatant deception about an individual’s Aboriginality. ...
[12] The evidence before me, arising from enquiries made following comments during these calls, is that Ms Terei’s mother is from New Zealand, is not Aboriginal and still lives in New Zealand. It is therefore alleged that Ms Terei claimed her Aboriginality from her maternal line, knowing it was untrue, ‘in order to have the Court consider s 3A of the Bail Act when she was not entitled to do so’. While this is not the time to determine the current allegations made against Ms Terei, the Arunta phone recordings provide strong evidence that Ms Terei is not an Aboriginal person and sought to gain some benefit in the bail application on the basis of identifying as an Aboriginal person.
