Applicant v Respondent

(a) Being ordered on 25 March 2025 by the Magistrates' Court in the family violence proceedings to hand in any firearms he had to the police; and

(b) It being a condition of his bail granted on 26 March 2025 that he not possess any firearms or firearm related items.

1. Also, in April 2022, a Personal Safety Intervention Order was made against the applicant. The relationship between the applicant and the 'protected person' is not clear. This order was in force until April 2024. No details of the events that lay behind the making of this Order were put before me. Then:

(a) On 25 March 2025, a Family Violence Final Intervention Order was made with the applicant's three children and their mother named as the affected family members. The applicant was ordered, among other things, not to contact or communicate with the affected family members or to go within 200 metres of where they live or work or attend school. Again, no details of the events that lay behind the making of this Order were put before me, save that I was told, and it was not contested and so I accept, that it did not involve any physical violence; and

(b) Also on 25 March 2025, a Family Violence Interim Intervention Order was made with the applicant's mother named as the affected family member. The applicant was ordered not to go to or remain at his parent's house other than with their written permission and to leave immediately if requested to do so. I note, for completeness, that on 6 June 2025 this order was varied (on an interim basis) so that the applicant was also precluded from contacting or approaching within 10 metres of his mother. Again, I was told, and I accept, that this did not involve the applicant being physically violent.

1. On 16 September 2025, the applicant was assessed for his suitability for a Court Integrated Services Program ('CISP'), the outcome of which was a recommendation for case management. During that assessment, the applicant said that he had been using 'ice' (methamphetamine) daily since he was 23 years old and cannabis since he was 12 years old. He said he had been diagnosed with depression and ADHD and 'maybe Bi-Polar' but would not say when or by whom he was so diagnosed. The report stated that an appointment had been made for the applicant to see his general practitioner on 23 September 2025 to obtain a mental health plan.
2. The applicant called evidence from Mr Kean and he was an impressive witness. He is a retired policeman and lives across the road from the local police station. He has known the applicant, or more particularly his parents, for many years. He has offered to have the applicant stay with him. He said, and I accept, that there are no firearms on his property. He was aware, in a general sense, that the applicant had taken drugs, and said that he would not tolerate any drugs or drug use on his property. He said, on his oath, that if the applicant breached his curfew or brought or used drugs on his premises he would report that to the police and I accept that evidence. Mr Kean has a car and would make himself available to drive the applicant to or from appointments if need be.
3. The applicant's father also gave oral evidence and also was an impressive witness. He confirmed that none of the family violence allegations made against his son involved physical violence, and that both he and his wife were supportive of the applicant being granted bail on condition that he reside with Mr Kean (who he described as an ideal person for the applicant to live with). When asked why the applicant might now be more ready to engage in treatment directed at his drug use, he said that he and his wife have now told the applicant, for the first time, that if he does not get off drugs then he will be no longer able to live with them - that they have told him that they will 'give up' on him.
4. Ms Dannae McPherson from CISP also gave oral evidence. She confirmed that if the applicant were granted bail she would be his case manager, and that she would meet with him at 2pm this Tuesday 23 September 2025. There are places available in the Shepparton Men's Behavioural Change program, and the applicant would likely be assessed for suitability for that program in about two weeks. She referred to other programs to which she might refer the applicant. She also confirmed that if it were a condition of his bail that the applicant attend case management with CISP and follow its directions, she would inform the police if the applicant were to miss an appointment.
5. The existence of exceptional circumstances that justify the grant of bail may be established by a combination of circumstances not one of which, taken by itself, would be sufficient.[9] In the circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances that justify the grant of bail. In addition to the matters referred to above, I note that:

(a) Although the unlawful possession of firearms is always a serious charge, I consider the applicant's alleged conduct (for the purpose of this bail application only and without intending to limit in any way the approach any sentencing Court might take) in this respect to be at the lesser end of seriousness. The firearms the applicant has, on the allegations, unlawfully possessed are not sawn-off shotguns or usable handguns or high powered rifles or firearms of that type. They are two air rifles and a PVC 'fruit gun';

(b) There is no suggestion that the applicant has ever used the firearms in a threatening manner;

(c) Associated with this, there is a risk that the applicant might end up spending more time on remand than the time ordered in any sentence. The applicant has been on remand now for some 106 days. If the 26 March 2025 charges go to trial, it is likely that the trial will be heard in the first half of 2026 by which time the applicant will have spent approximately 10 months in custody. The respondent referred me to two cases involving firearm offences for consideration. In DPP v Symons,[10] the offender was sentenced to imprisonment of one year for possession of a traffickable quantity of firearms. But that case involved the possession of a loaded sawn-off bolt action rifle and a revolver and numerous batons and knives. In DPP v Vipond,[11] where the accused was sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment in relation to firearm offences. But, again, that case involved the possession of a sawn-off shotgun, a bolt action rifle, and a dismantled pump action rifle. Those types of guns are notoriously associated with violent criminal behaviour in a way air rifles and PVC fruit guns are not;

(d) There is no suggestion that the applicant has breached the family violence intervention order that operates in respect of his ex-partner and children;

(e) The affected person in the family violence intervention order that the applicant has breached, his mother, is supportive of the applicant being granted bail on the proposed conditions. Although it is well-known that in situations of family violence victims might agree to perpetrators being put in situations where they can continue their violent behaviour, this does not seem to me to be one of those circumstances. Rather, as explained by the applicant's father, the applicant's parents see this opportunity as a final opportunity for the applicant to get his life in order, so to speak;

(f) The applicant's father has offered to have the applicant work with him in his excavation and landscaping business;

(g) The applicant will have an appropriate place to live other than with his parents with a responsible ex-policeman; and

(h) If bail is granted, CISP will put together a program of supervision and treatment for the applicant. In this respect, I note that it was a condition of the community correction orders made on 28 February 2019 and on 8 September 2017 that the applicant be supervised by the Secretary and that he undergo treatment and rehabilitation (including testing) for drug abuse or dependency as directed, as well as other programs. Although the applicant seems not to have taken advantage of these opportunities, there is no material before me that explains what was in fact offered or arranged or why programs were not pursued. Also, I consider there is a difference where there is a program the compliance with which is a condition of bail. Further, I was impressed with the applicant's father's evidence that this time was or could be different because of the change in attitude that was now being taken by him and his wife.

1. I have not overlooked the applicant's criminal history or that the ammunition allegedly found in his possession is ammunition for use in firearms other than those found in his possession and this raises the possibility that he has, or has had access also to other guns. But, as noted, there is no suggestion that the applicant has even improperly or aggressively used firearms and it may also be, as the applicant seems to suggest, that he just collected bits and pieces of ammunition and other items that he came across.

1. I am, for many of the same reasons, also satisfied that if the applicant is bailed to 20 October 2025 and suitable conditions are imposed, then the risk that the applicant will commit a Schedule 2 offence, endanger the safety and welfare of any persons, interfere with a witness or perpetrate family violence is an acceptable risk. In this respect, I place particular weight (noting some repetition) on the facts that the applicant has not been found with firearms on his person and that they have always been at his parents' premises (where he was then living), that there is no allegation that he has breached the Family Violence Final Intervention Order in favour of his ex-partner and children, and that the prospects of his threatening his mother is reduced if he is not living at her house. Also, the charge in respect of which she is the primary witness has been resolved by a plea of guilty.
2. The applicant is before the Shepparton Magistrates' Court on 20 October 2025, at which time he may be sentenced for the offences to which he has pleaded guilty. In those circumstances, the risk is ameliorated to a level that makes it acceptable if, in addition to what might be considered the usual conditions of a grant of bail, there are conditions of a grant of bail to that date that the applicant:

(a) Reside with Mr Kean and respect a curfew of between 10pm and 5am and produce himself at the front door of those premises during those hours if a member of the police requests that he do so;

(b) Attend all scheduled meetings with and follow all lawful directions of CISP officers and engage with any treatment and support plan arranged by them;

(c) Report to the Shepparton police station each Monday, Wednesday and Friday; and

(d) Comply with the Family Violence Interim Intervention Order made in proceeding R10195404.

1. There may also be an opportunity, if further bail is sought, for the applicant's progress to be evaluated by the Magistrates' Court on that day.
2. In reaching these conclusion, I have not overlooked the fact that, on the facts and allegations, the applicant has demonstrated a preparedness in the past to ignore court orders and to possess weapons that he is not allowed to possess, and to engage in threatening behaviour. Those are matters that create the relevant risk. But, on balance, I nonetheless consider the risk to be an acceptable one in all the circumstances.

1. The applicant was admitted to bail on the conditions described.

[1] Bail Act 1977 (Vic) sch 2 item 18(a).

[2] Ibid ss 4AA(c)(i), 4A(1).

[3] Ibid s 4A(3).

[4] Ibid s 3AAA.

[5] Ibid s 4E(1).

[6] Ibid s 4E(3).

[7] Ibid s 1B.

[8] Firearms Act 1966 (Vic) s 3 (definition of 'prohibited person' para (c)(ib)).

[9] See, eg, Re Logan [2019] VSC 134, [13] (Elliott J).

[10] [2022] VCC 1471.

[11] [2025] VCC 81.