A recently updated judicial manual for Victorian judges and magistrates has reignited debate over Premier Jacinta Allan’s “tough-on-crime” reforms, as it continues to advise courts to release accused youth offenders on bail wherever possible — even after the government’s proclaimed crackdown on crime.
The Bail Bench Book, revised by the Judicial College of Victoria on October 3, urges judicial officers to “impose the minimum intervention required” for children, particularly Aboriginal youths. The guide emphasises that bail should be granted, with conditions, “wherever possible.”
The update comes as youth crime rates reach record highs, with the same 1100 young offenders aged 10–17 arrested more than 7000 times in just one year. Despite new laws passed in March that make community safety a top priority and remove the “remand as a last resort” rule for children, the manual continues to prioritise minimal detention.
The manual argues that incarcerating young offenders may increase their likelihood of reoffending and pose long-term risks to public safety. It cites Justice Michael Croucher’s ruling that keeping children out of custody often benefits both rehabilitation and the wider community.
However, the Opposition has fiercely criticised the document, calling it proof that the Allan government’s reforms are “smoke and mirrors.” Shadow Attorney-General Michael O’Brien accused the Premier of misleading the public, saying judges were “still being told that youth offenders should get bail wherever possible.”
Opposition Leader Brad Battin went further, labelling the reforms a “joke” and warning that violent offenders would remain free due to judicial leniency.
The Allan government, however, insists the changes are working. A government spokesperson said that remand rates for youth offenders had increased by 46%, demonstrating that courts are already taking tougher action. Premier Allan defended the reforms, saying, “Community safety now comes first in all bail decisions — that’s the fundamental shift.”
Still, critics argue that the contradiction between government messaging and judicial guidance exposes confusion within the system — and risks undermining public confidence in the state’s ability to protect communities amid escalating youth violence.
