Introduction
The Victorian government announced on 28 October 2025 that the Malmsbury Youth Justice Centre would be reopened in early 2026. In doing so, there would be an additional 30 beds to cater for young people aged 17 and over who are remanded under the States new strict bail laws. The announcement caused debate surrounding youth crime management, bail reform and the broader issue relating to youth crime in Victoria.
Youth Crime, Bail Laws and Remand Pressures
There has been a marked increase in youth crime in Victoria and consequently being remanded into custody. The government advises that there has been a 46% increase in youth remand year on year, attributed to the stricter bail laws that were introduced earlier in 2025.
From a criminal defence perspective, the dramatic increase in remand of youth offenders causes concern regarding remand time, access to representation and the ability to distinguish between ongoing risk from incarceration. It is argued by criminal defence lawyers that remand should be used as a last resort rather than a quick fix response to higher numbers of youth offending.
Simultaneously, the youth crime agenda is in the public domain constantly, causing fear, with media coverage emphasising “brazen and violent offending” by young people and repeat offenders, home invasions and other serious violent crimes. This media coverage feeds into the policy choices around youth offenders and safety concerns.
Governments Reasons for the Reopening – do we agree?
The Victorian Government has argued that the reopening of the Malmsbury Centre is necessary to relieve the pressure on the Cherry Creek and Parkville Youth Justice Centres currently operating.
Their specific reasoning can be summarised as follows:
- The reopening will only be catering for lower risk offenders aged under 17 to free up beds for higher risk offenders
- The infrastructure upgrades will cost $141 million over five years, plus an immediate $4.8 million for security upgrades; all for an additional 30 beds
- The bail law changes and remand pressures are the direct reason for the opening, with Corrections Minister Enver Erdogan stating that the tougher bail laws are effective as we are seeing more young people off the streets
Critical Perspective and the Implications
Whilst we can see the direct correlation between the media hype of the youth crime and the reopening of the centre, there are a number of red flags in relation to criminal defence, youth crime policy and equality of the bail laws
Impact of Remand than Bail
The effects of remand can be disastrous for young people. The disruption to education, family supports and rehabilitation programs can be more harmful than the risk of releasing these young people on bail. Opening up more beds is making remanding young people more of a norm than a last resort. The Justice Reform Initiative has argued that the surge in young people being remanded is a “direct consequence of the tougher bail laws” rather than an increase in offending.
The question we must answer is are the bail laws being interpreted and applied fairly whilst balancing rehabilitation of young people or is it merely a quick fix answer to public concern? The reopening should be scrutinised to ensure that remand of young offenders is not a means to stop the public criticism of the government but a necessary step should bail not be a viable option where bail supports and rehabilitation are insufficient.
Institutionalism and recidivism
It is well known that remanded and imprisoning people can increase the risk of reoffending, merely due to the connections that are made and continued upon release. Young people incarcerated have their development disrupted and become exposed to more violent and serious offenders where they become more entrenched in the environment.
As Judge Tinney said in his reasoning in the case of DPP v Haberfield in 2019 at para 50;
“young people are prone to making errors … [as] they are not fully developed. They make poor decisions without considering the consequences. They are more amenable to rehabilitation as they are young and less set in their ways. They are far more vulnerable to the harm and corruptive influence in adult prison.”
Whilst reopening Malmsbury provides immediate extra beds to deal with the uptick in remands, it will do little to address the root causes of youth offending such as mental health issues, trauma family breakdowns and cultural hardships. Without addressing these issues in combination, the cycle will continue.
Sentencing
Generally, sentencing of a young person involves some form of a diversion rather than more traditional sentencing principles applied to adults and this must be considered when weighing up the remand issue when in a lot of cases, a remand will be converted into a diversion with “no jail time” on record. It would be ill-conceived to consider disrupting and inhibiting a young person’s rehabilitation and pathway into a productive adulthood simply because of the need to feel that the young offender should be denounced and given a criminal record which may significantly impact they’re future.
Youth crime and public perception
The “youth crime crisis” clearly underpins this decision by the government. There is an emphasis on repeat offenders and violent behaviour by young people which influences decisions surrounding bail, sentencing and the public perception of the States youth.
Referring back to Judge Tinney’s reasonings in the case of Haberfield;
“a prison term imposed to satisfy a public clamour for punishment can often set back rehabilitation prospects of a youthful offender and in that same way impact negatively upon the community as well.”
As a consequence, the scrutiny of young people is heightened and may face harsher penalties, less likely to receive bail or if they do have significantly harsher condition imposed and where the system is under pressure to take any action possible rather than meaningful progress.
Conclusion
The reopening of Malmsbury Youth Justice Centre is the Governments response to the pressures of youth crime, remand capacities and bail law reforms. From a criminal defence perspective, it is understandable that infrastructure upgrades may be a required as a response to policy changes, but it must be balanced against the strategy to prevent juvenile offending and emphasise rehabilitation rather than merely becoming another expansion to custody. It is important to ensure the rights of young people are not overshadowed by the Government trying to protect their reputation.
For the reopening of Malmsbury to be effective, it must be embedded with an emphasis on diversion, community based supports, trauma-informed practices and serve to genuinely reduce youth crime and enhance rehabilitation. Without this, the taxpayers are investing in bricks and fences rather than in people and risk making the same mistakes once again.
Testimonials
What people Say
-
I want to sincerely thank my lawyer, Daniel, for the exceptional support he provided throughout my matter. He was professional, understanding, and... Read More5/5
-
I had an outstanding experience with Daniel Moon from MK Law. He took the time to truly understand my situation and represented me with profession... Read More5/5
-
I want to sincerely thank my lawyer Mr Daniel Moon for representing me so well in court. He made me feel comfortable, as it was my first experienc... Read More5/5
-
Michael Sunderland from MK Law handled my matter with professionalism, respect, and genuine care. It was clear that he genuinely cared about gett... Read More5/5
Contact Us
Call Anytime For Free Legal Advice 24/7
Top 5 firms by reputation dealing with traffic and criminal law matters.
- 2/212 Barkly Street, St Kilda Victoria, 3182 Australia
- 1800 130 120
- marcus@mklawfirm.com.au