Applicant v Respondent

1. The applicant himself has recently become a father, with the child's mother named as the 'affected family member' in a family violence final intervention order that expires in May 2028, which the applicant is alleged to have breached when it was an 'interim' order.
2. According to the history recorded by the neuropsychologist Dr Matt Treeby, who assessed the applicant in August 2022, the applicant's mother and father were 16 years old when the applicant was born, and they separated when the applicant was six months old. The applicant's birth was described as 'traumatic'. He is the eldest of four half-siblings, and maintains a positive relationship with his mother. Since in or about 2022, the applicant has identified as a Yorta Yorta man (his paternal grandfather was indigenous), but presently has 'limited cultural connections' due to the 'strained' relationship with his father. Dr Treeby diagnosed the applicant with an acquired brain injury as a result of his traumatic birth (and said he was on the 'cusp' of having a mild intellectual disability), a language disorder, stimulant use disorder, cannabis use disorder, other substance use disorder, and major depressive disorder.
3. The applicant experienced learning and social difficulties at school and was suspended on many occasions before leaving in Year 8. He was enrolled in an alternative school program for disengaged adolescent students, however was asked to leave after 'numerous behavioural warnings'. The applicant reports that he first commenced cannabis use at 13 years of age, then alcohol, benzodiazepines and nicotine use at 14 years of age, ecstasy at 15 years of age, and GHB and methamphetamine at 16 years of age.
4. The applicant is on a disability support pension and receives funding through the National Disability Insurance Scheme ('NDIS'), through which he has the support of a social worker, receives occupational therapy and has access to a 'support coordination and psychosocial recovery coach'.
5. The applicant has a most concerning criminal history. I will not set out here his full history, but in just the last 24 months (and this list is not meant to be exhaustive):

(a) On 6 November 2023, he was found guilty of burglary, unlawful assault, possession of an imitation firearm, thefts of motor vehicles, shoplifting, unlicensed driving, obtaining property by deception, receiving stolen goods, possessing a prohibited weapon, possessing a controlled weapon, going equipped to steal, dealing with the proceeds of crime, possessing ammunition without a licence, use of an unregistered motor vehicle, and possessing drugs of dependence. Some of these offences were committed whilst he was already on bail, and he was also found guilty of committing indictable offences whilst on bail. He was sentenced to 100 days of imprisonment, which was in effect time served. He was also sentenced to a 16 month Community Correction Order that required him to undergo assessment and treatment for drug abuse or dependency as directed, mental health assessment as directed, offending behaviour programs as directed, and any other treatment and rehabilitation as directed;

(b) On 22 January 2024, he was found guilty of thefts of motor vehicles, failing to stop on police direction, possession of various drugs of dependence, receiving stolen goods, shoplifting, burglary, driving while unlicensed, unlawful assault, aggravated burglary with the person present, obtaining property by deception, threatening to inflict serious injury, thefts from motor vehicles and shops, driving whilst disqualified, using an unregistered motor vehicle, and dealing with property suspected to be proceeds of crime, and possessing drugs of dependence. Some 11 of these offences were committed whilst he was already on bail, and thus he was also found guilty of committing indictable offences whilst on bail. He was sentenced to 120 days detention in a youth training centre;

(c) On 13 September 2024, he was found guilty of handling stolen goods, possessing counterfeit money, going equipped to steal, possessing a prohibited weapon, possessing cartridge ammunition, and possessing various drugs of dependence;

(d) On 20 September 2024, he was found guilty of driving while disqualified, failing to stop after an accident, using a false registration, assault with a weapon, aggravated burglary with a person present, retention of stolen goods, obtaining property by deception, careless driving, handling stolen goods, going equipped to steal, possessing a prohibited weapon (as I understand it, a home-made firearm), possessing a controlled weapon, possessing ammunition, possessing counterfeit money, and possessing various drugs of dependence. He was sentenced to 96 days imprisonment, which was time served, and a 14 month Community Correction Order. He was required to undergo assessment and treatment for drug abuse or dependency as directed, and offending behaviour programs as directed; and

(e) On 19 March 2025, he was found guilty of reckless conduct endangering life (which was related to driving not personal violence), burglary, obtaining financial advantage by deception, using false documents, handling stolen goods, knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime, thefts of motor vehicles, thefts from motor vehicles, possessing a controlled weapon, entering a private place without authority, going equipped to steal, dangerous driving, dangerous driving while pursued by police, driving while disqualified, driving a vehicle without registration plates affixed, failing to stop on police direction, and possessing a drug of dependence. He was sentenced to five months imprisonment, being time served, and otherwise given a 12 month Community Correction Order. He was required, again, to undergo assessment and treatment for drug abuse or dependency as directed and offending behaviour programs as directed.

1. As a result of these offences, the applicant is currently subject to two Community Correction Orders. A report from the Department of Justice and Community Safety dated 27 June 2025 confirms that the applicant had been attending his appointments and that on 15 April 2025, the applicant had begun discussing with a Youth Outreach Clinician 'plans for Youth Residential Detox and possible Residential Rehabilitation'. The report also states (or understates), before referring to the current charges, that:

It is of concern that, despite Mr Ledain's positive attendance with supervision and apparent willingness to engage with the order, it is alleged that he has continued serious criminal behaviours within the community ...

D The offer of a bed at Odyssey House and proposed rehabilitation program

1. Odyssey House is a well-known drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility. The applicant has provided a letter from Zi Largiader, an alcohol and other drugs clinician at Odyssey House, confirming that the applicant has recently been offered admission to its 'Therapeutic Community Residential Rehabilitation Program' at its Lower Plenty facility. If granted bail, the applicant would reside at Odyssey House and be subject to its rules. All participants in the program are required to undergo urine drug screening, and are required to abstain from using alcohol and drugs, and from engaging in sex, violence and theft. Although it is not a secure facility, in the sense that residents are not physically restrained from leaving, a staff member of Odyssey House, Mr Nathan Carnie, explained that there is a 'muster' or 'head check' every two hours between 6am and midnight and two security checks overnight, at which it is ascertained whether everyone is accounted for. If the applicant were found not to be present at one of the checks, Odyssey House would immediately contact the Informant and the applicant's lawyers or, if his absence was identified between midnight and 6am, it would do so 'first thing' the following morning. Mr Carnie said that they had had only 'one or two' people abscond from the Lower Plenty facility this year, in circumstances where they have approximately 70 residents at any one time and, he estimated, had had 'well over a hundred, two hundred' people this year.
2. Mr Carnie also gave evidence that Odyssey House does not accept someone as a resident unless it believes that the person is in a mental state such that they're willing to engage with Odyssey House, and that the decision that the applicant was a suitable candidate for its program was made by it with full knowledge of the applicant's criminal background. According to Mr Carnie, those from Odyssey House who had assessed the applicant's suitability had formed the view that the applicant was 'willing and open to want to change' his behaviours. To like effect, the applicant also called evidence from his NDIS case manager, Mr Oluwatosin Akinbiyi, who is a qualified social worker. Mr Akinbiyi has known the applicant for about five months, and has maintained contact with him while he has been in custody. Mr Akinbiyi confirmed that the applicant had raised with him a desire to attend a rehabilitation program before he was arrested for the current offences and Mr Akinbiyi had started the referral process including to Odyssey House. He also confirmed that the applicant had not previously engaged with a formal rehabilitation program, let alone a residential one, and that he was able to transfer the applicant to Odyssey House from custody in the event that bail was granted. Finally, Mr Akinbiyi expressed his opinion, based on his experience and dealings with the applicant, that the applicant's desire to rehabilitate was genuine.

E Is there a compelling reason that justifies the grant of bail?

1. The applicant is still quite young. He has an acquired brain injury and little in the way of formal education. He clearly has had a long-standing drug and alcohol problem that is associated with his repeat offending. He has now been offered a residential drug and alcohol rehabilitation program with Odyssey House, which enjoys a good reputation as a rehabilitation facility. The evidence is that he is genuine in his desire to rehabilitate, and this is the first time that the applicant has been afforded an opportunity to participate in residential rehabilitation treatment and he will not have that opportunity if he were not granted bail. For this reason, the prospect of the applicant changing his behaviour, going forward, is very much increased if he is able to take advantage of this opportunity, rather than remain in custody.
2. In my view, these matters in combination amount to a compelling reason that justifies the grant of bail. The outcome of this application therefore turned on whether the applicant, if released on bail, would pose an unacceptable risk.

1. The question is whether there is an unacceptable risk, that may not be sufficiently reduced by the imposition of bail conditions, that the applicant would, if released on bail, commit a Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 offence, otherwise endanger the safety or welfare of any other person, interfere with a witness or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, or fail to surrender into custody in accordance with the conditions of bail.
2. The applicant was born in Australia and has strong family connections to Victoria and is not a flight risk. There seems little prospect that he would seek to interfere with the witnesses in the charges brought against him, with the possible exception of the charge brought for breach of the family violence intervention order. In this respect, I note that the breach alleged against him is not a breach of violence. For these reasons, the consideration of whether there is an unacceptable risk turns on an evaluation of the risk that the applicant, if released on bail, might endanger the safety or welfare of any other person by re-engaging in criminal conduct.[10]
3. The applicant has an ongoing substance abuse disorder and has engaged in criminal conduct that has endangered members of the public despite being on bail and despite being subject to Community Correction Orders. I am satisfied that there would be an unacceptable risk that the applicant would commit a relevant offence or endanger the safety and welfare of the community if he were released on bail into the community at large even if subject to stringent bail conditions.
4. The more difficult question is whether the risk remains an unacceptable risk if the applicant is released on bail on conditions that he reside at Odyssey House and follow its rules and directions and not leave other than in the presence of a member of its staff or other person appointed by it. The risk is certainly acceptable if he were to comply with those conditions, and the issue really comes down to evaluating the risk that the applicant might instead abscond and then behave in a way that endangers the safety or welfare of other persons.
5. After some hesitation, I have concluded that the risk that the applicant might do so is an acceptable risk in the circumstances. As noted above, Odyssey House has assessed the applicant as someone who is prepared to engage in rehabilitation, and this was also the opinion of his NDIS case manager. The safety of the community would clearly be advanced over the long term if the applicant were able successfully to rehabilitate himself now (bearing in mind that he is still young and will, inevitably, be released from custody at the end of any sentence of imprisonment). The applicant seems to be at a moment in his life, as a 21-year old young man and father, where it is feasible that he might make real and successful efforts to change his life's trajectory. It may be that the opportunity to engage with his indigenous heritage, which Odyssey House will facilitate, is also of some help. Further, if the applicant does abscond, the Informant will find out reasonably promptly and the applicant may then be taken back into custody. It is also relevant that although the applicant has been found with firearms and is alleged to have driven while intoxicated, both of which are of great concern, and has been charged with many thefts and burglaries in the past, he has not been found guilty, or charged, with discharging firearms.

1. For the above reasons, on 8 September 2025 I granted the applicant bail on the conditions discussed, and set a date for judicial monitoring.

[1] The charge sheet refers to '1, 4 butanol', but is intended to refer to '1, 4 butanediol'.

[2] Bail Act 1977 (Vic) sch 2 s 24.

[3] Ibid ss 4AA(3), 4C(2).

[4] Ibid s 4C(1A).

[5] [2021] VSC 249.

[6] [2018] VSC 361 [46]-[47].

[7] Re Tofaris [2021] VSC 249 [24].

[8] Bail Act 1977 (Vic), s 3AAA.

[9] Re Tofaris [2021] VSC 249 [24].

[10] The respondent did not submit that the applicant posed an unacceptable risk of committing a Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 offence if granted bail.