Applicant v Respondent

B The circumstances of the alleged offending

1. On 9 October 2025, a shipping container was delivered to a freight terminal in Dandenong. CCTV is said to show that at 2:47am, a man drove in a Ford Everest to a factory that was adjacent to the freight terminal and, about an hour later, cut through the fence between the factory and the freight terminal so that he could access the freight terminal. Further CCTV footage is said to show the same man then cut the lock of the shipping container and remove items from inside the container using three smaller bags, then place the three smaller bags inside a larger bag and move them to the premises of the factory where he put them under a tarpaulin and placed a piece of wood on top. Inside these bags, it is alleged, was 74 kilograms of cocaine. The man then left the site.
2. The respondent contends that the applicant is the man shown in the CCTV.
3. At 9am, staff at the freight terminal discovered that the locks and seals on the shipping container had been damaged. They reviewed the CCTV, saw the container being broken into and items removed from it and taken away. They found, it is alleged, the tarpaulin under which was a balaclava, a pair of bolt cutters, a blue piece of metal and three black bags containing rectangular blocks inside a larger bag. Staff at the freight terminal called the police and secured the area. At 4:37pm, police attended the freight terminal and seized the balaclava, bolt cutters and 74 rectangular blocks, each of which is alleged to contain one kilogram of cocaine.
4. On 24 October 2025, the applicant was observed by the factory manager to be parked outside the factory (in another car) on multiple occasions throughout the day. Due to concerns regarding the applicant's conduct, police officers located the applicant at a nearby service station that evening where he was arrested and charged. He has been in custody since that time.

1. The applicant has an extensive criminal history and a number of outstanding charges.

1. Most of the applicant's criminal history relates to traffic offences including driving while disqualified or while his licence was suspended. However:

(a) in 2002, the applicant was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment for recklessly causing serious injury;

(b) in 2003, he was convicted and fined for stating a false name and address and for careless driving and sentenced to six months' imprisonment, wholly suspended, for driving while disqualified;

(c) in 2004, he drove while disqualified in breach of suspended sentences he had received for driving while disqualified;

(d) in March and again in August 2005, he received another term of imprisonment for driving while disqualified in breach of a suspended sentence;

(e) in April 2006, he was convicted and fined, again, for providing a false name and address, and for failing to answer bail (which, I assume, was pending an appeal he had initiated);

(f) in September 2006, he received another (concurrent) sentence for unlicensed driving and stating a false name;

(g) in February 2009, he received a partially suspended sentence for driving while disqualified and stating a false name and for failing to answer bail; and

(h) in August 2010, the applicant was given a suspended sentence for possessing an unregistered handgun and dealing with property suspected to be the proceeds of a crime. The sentence was reduced, it seems, following an appeal. I was informed, and accept, that the handgun was found loaded on some shelves in his room together with approximately $100,000 in cash. He was also convicted and fined for possessing amphetamine.

1. This history shows a willingness to breach the law and to lie to police officers and breach court orders and conditions of bail, but these offences all took place some 15 to 20 years ago.

1. Earlier this year, the applicant was charged with recklessly causing injury and unlawful assault on his partner on 8 August 2025. He was granted bail at Broadmeadows Magistrates' Court and was on bail at the time of the current alleged offending.

1. In November and December 2024, it is alleged that the applicant was issued a 'fire prevention notice' which required him to cut overgrown grass at a block of land in Greenvale, but did not comply with that notice. An infringement notice was issued, but the applicant did not pay the amount owing.
2. Between March and April 2025, it is alleged that the applicant committed acts of cruelty in relation to a pet dog by failing to groom the dog, to the point where its fur was in a severely matted state, and by failing to provide the dog with sufficient food.
3. On 9 June 2025, the applicant allegedly entered a business in Ivanhoe as a trespasser and stole various electronic goods, household items and furniture valued at a total $14,158. Also, on the same date, it is alleged that he failed to stop for police while he was driving, running a red light at speed through a major intersection to evade them.
4. On 13 August 2025, a family violence intervention order was made that named his partner and children as the 'protected persons'. On 20 August 2025, the applicant is alleged to have breached the family violence intervention order when he attended the children's school in the company of his partner. The intervention order no longer precludes the applicant from contacting his partner or children and it seems that the applicant's partner, who called and made the complaints to the police that led to the intervention order, is not supportive of the intervention order. She was in court and supported the application for bail.

1. The respondent expects to serve a brief of evidence this week, but it will be incomplete. A preliminary analysis of one of the bricks has been performed and has revealed that it was cocaine, however further tests are required to ascertain the purity of the cocaine and to confirm the natural expectation that the other bricks are also cocaine. The respondent intends to have testing performed of all the bricks and is unable to say when that testing will have been completed. It also intends to have DNA testing performed of items found at the premises, and is unable to say when that will be performed. There are, no doubt, also other matters outstanding. I determine this application on the basis that, if bail is not granted, the applicant will likely spend between 18 months and two years in custody prior to any trial. This is a significant delay. But it is well short of the likely sentence if the applicant is found guilty.

1. The applicant was born in Kosovo in 1979 and is now 46 years old. After relocating to a refugee camp in Albania at age 18, he came to Australia when he was 21 years old where he had some family. He ran a coffee shop with some business partners for approximately seven years, then for a while ran two Celebration Bottle Shops, and now runs, with his brother, three Brilliant Car Wash businesses in Northcote, Bulleen and Heidelberg West. If granted bail, he will return to operate those business.
2. He and his domestic partner have three children aged three, eight and nine years old. Their eldest child has Autism Spectrum Disorder and Attention Deficit Disorder and the applicant's partner is a full-time carer for that child and a stay-at-home mother for all children.
3. On 26 November 2025, the applicant was assessed by the rehabilitation consultant Ms Amanda Brown at the request of his lawyers. She noted that he described overwhelming symptoms consistent with post traumatic stress disorder ('PTSD') deriving from his experiences in the Kosovo war, and that his symptoms have become intensified while in custody. She noted that he had 'self-medicated' with illicit substances, while declining some years ago to take medications for his mental condition prescribed by his doctor. He told her that he used amphetamines and then methamphetamine and Xanax from age 22 to age 30, then ceased use and was clean following treatment for the next decade but that, following the imposition of a family violence intervention order which required him to relocate from the family home about two months ago, he started again taking methamphetamine each day. He has been drug free while in custody, and was, he said, 'determined to address his drug problem'. Ms Brown has offered to have two counselling sessions each week and to provide weekly supervised urine drug screens if he were to be granted bail.
4. On 4 December 2025, the applicant was assessed by the psychologist Ms Erin Cutler at the request of his solicitors. The applicant told Ms Cutler that:

(a) he had not taken any illicit drugs for some 10 years prior to some months ago after he was arrested for, I assume, the alleged acts of family violence. After this, he said, he 'slid into a relapse, using substances daily (methamphetamine)' and that he 'found himself not wanting to cease drug use, as it helped him to feel better about his situation', and that he was using methamphetamine daily until he was placed in custody (I assume, in respect of the instant charges); and

(b) he was suffering 'panic attacks' in custody and wanted to be released so that he could 'take care of his businesses, visit his brother (in case his cancer becomes terminal), provide for his family, and support his mother' and receive 'treatment for his mental health'.

1. Ms Cutler diagnosed PTSD associated with him having grown up in a war zone and expressed a concern that the applicant's mental health may deteriorate in custody. Ms Cutler said that the applicant needs treatment and should be assessed by a general practitioner to have established a Mental Health Treatment Plan and then referral to a psychologist experienced in managing mental health presentations specific to trauma and substance abuse and referral to a psychiatrist for medication review and that he engage in alcohol and other drugs counselling. She said, and I accept, that although some treatment and particularly emergency treatment is available for persons in custody, it is difficult to access in custody the sort of counselling and other programs that she suggests that the applicant should have.
2. The applicant claims to be the main breadwinner for his family (with his partner receiving a carer's pension). If he is unable to return to work, it may be that his partner is not able meet the rental payments on the family home.
3. The applicant's brother was diagnosed with leukaemia in 2015 but, after a long period of remission, that illness has returned and he is currently receiving treatment again as an inpatient at Royal Melbourne Hospital.

1. The applicant's mother has offered the equity in her home, worth $580,000, as a bail guarantee and said that applicant could live with her if granted bail. The home is her only asset (beyond some money in the bank). She swore in her affidavit that she would contact the police if the applicant did not comply with his bail conditions. She gave oral evidence. She is obviously a very caring mother. She does not speak English and clarified that she herself would not be able to call the police. She would call her daughter, and ask her daughter to call the police. The applicant's sister was then called, and undertook that she would call the police if asked to do so by her mother.

1. The person caught on CCTV would very likely be convicted of the charged offence, in light of the shown activities and the quantities involved, assuming that the drug testing does not produce some unexpected result.
2. Based on the material before me, and although I accept that the evidence has not been tested, the case that the applicant was that person appears to be very strong. In this respect, I note that:

(a) a rental car company's records indicate that the applicant rented a Ford Everest licence plate 2AR3CS;

(b) CCTV taken at a BP petrol station not far from the relevant premises, at about 2:30am on 9 October 2025, shows someone who looks to my eyes very much like the applicant filling up the Ford Everest and buying some items from inside. That person is wearing a black hoodie underneath a reasonably distinctive high-vis coat and grey tracksuit pants;

(c) CCTV shows a Ford Everest of the same make, model and colour parking near the factory at about 2:47am, which is about two minutes' drive from the BP petrol station;

(d) CCTV shows a person leaving that Ford Everest and entering the rear of the factory at about 3:13am;

(e) CCTV from the inside of the factory then shows that person removing a high-visibility coat and entering the freight company and then moving the alleged drugs from the freight company and hiding them at the factory. The man appears to be wearing a black hoodie and grey or green tracksuit pants that appear to be the same as the clothes shown in the petrol station footage. He then puts back on a high-visibility coat and leaves the factory at about 5:30am. That coat, too, looks very much like the coat shown in the CCTV footage from the petrol station;

(f) at about 6:51am, CCTV shows the Ford Everest park at a nearby café and a person leave and purchase some items. The person is, again, wearing a black hoodie and grey tracksuit pants and the same high-visibility coat. At about 9:52am, CCTV shows the same person speak to another person who arrived in a Toyota Yaris with licence plate 2AB9UF. Later that day, CCTV shows what seems to be the same person (who as I said looks like the applicant) again at the BP petrol station purchasing some goods, this time wearing a distinctively-coloured bucket hat;

(g) at about 5:28am on 10 October 2025, that is, the next morning, CCTV shows a Ford Everest of the same make, model and colour park opposite the factory, and a man get out and enter the factory premises with a trolley and take it to where the drugs had been hidden the previous morning, then leave empty handed. The man is, again, wearing what seems to be the same high-visibility coat and a black beanie or some such hat;

(h) at about 8:39am, CCTV from the café shows what seems to be the same person get out of the Toyota Yaris with someone else. That person has what seems to be the same high-visibility coat, and the same bucket hat;

(i) at about 9:05am, CCTV shows the two men arrive at the factory in the Toyota Yaris and engage with the people there. One of those persons, who again looks like the applicant, is wearing what seems to be the same high visibility jacket, black top and tracksuit pants, and the bucket hat. Those persons told the factory manager that they have goods at the rear that they need to collect. They walked back to where the bags had been. This led the manager to check his CCTV and then to tell them that the police had come overnight and collected something. The manager has since identified the applicant from a photo board as the person he spoke with (the applicant having refused to participate in an identification parade);

(j) it is alleged that the applicant threatened the manager and requested that the manager send him a photograph proving the police attended and saying this would need to occur if the applicant were to leave the manager alone. The alleged threat, as I understand it, was in the following terms:

It's not a joke, there are big persons involved in this one, its not good for you or your family.

(k) at about 2:23pm, CCTV shows two other people enter the factory, then try to run away when they realise the police were present. One was arrested, one was not;

(l) at about 3:30pm, drone footage was taken over the factory premises. The drone footage includes footage of the drone being prepared, which shows a close up of someone who, again, looks like the applicant sitting in a car and preparing that drone for use. CCTV confirms that the Ford Everest is in that vicinity at that time;

(m) the Ford Everest is seen outside the factory again several times in the following days;

(n) by 20 October 2025, the Ford Everest was flagged as a stolen vehicle (it have having not been returned to the hire company). At about 10:23pm it was noticed by two Highway Patrol officers who asked the driver, I infer, to stop. The driver attempted to flee and the officers used a tyre deflation device. The driver then tried to flee on foot and climbed a tree. He was arrested and released. The Ford Everest was seized;

(o) the factory manager says that the same person was seen watching their premises multiple times over the following days; and

(p) on 24 October 2025, the applicant was arrested at the BP petrol station. Inside his car was found, the Informant said, three mobile telephones, on one or some of which were images of the factory premises.

1. In those circumstances, and again based only on the material presently before me, and conscious that this evidence has not yet been tested, it seems highly likely that the applicant is the person who, under cover of darkness and in the early hours of the morning, broke into factory premises, cut the fence, moved into the freight company's premises, broke into a shipping container, moved the 74 one kilogram blocks from the container and hid them at the factory premises, came back the next morning looking for them to find them gone, came back when the factory was open and engaged with its employees about recovering them, then continued to monitor the premises including by drone over the following days.

D Exceptional circumstances and level of risk.

1. The alleged offending is serious. If the allegations are correct, the applicant would seem to be a trusted member of a large and sophisticated drug importation criminal organisation that has access to large amounts of money that was able to smuggle 74 kilograms of cocaine, with a street value of $20 million, into a container to be delivered to someone else. His trusted role may be inferred from the fact that he had, on the allegations, details of the container in which the drugs would be imported and was given the responsibility, alone, to remove the drugs from that container and take them under his custody and control. The existence of a sophisticated and large drug importation criminal organisation may be inferred from the quantity and value of the drugs involved. If convicted, it is likely that the applicant would be given a substantial sentence of imprisonment.
2. The applicant's drug problem and PTSD are relevant factors, clearly, and it would be in his interests to be able to access the best treatment available and it would also be in the interests of the community for him to get his addiction and PTSD under control. I accept that he is likely to suffer more in custody than someone without that condition and that the treatment he could receive in the community, including from Ms Brown or Ms Cutler's organisation, is better than any treatment he could receive in prison or on remand. That said, the nature and scale of this alleged offending is such that it is not capable of being explained simply as someone engaging in criminal conduct to feed their drug addiction. It was not an opportunistic act engaged in for the purposes of meeting an immediate need for drugs, nor an act of violence resulting from an intoxicated state. It was a carefully planned participation in a carefully planned activity. For this reason, it cannot be assumed that the applicant would not engage in further criminal conduct for so long as he engages in treatment programs or remains clean of illicit substances. Equally, any suggestion that this alleged offending has come about because of a 'relapse' suffered since his arrest in August this year must be rejected, at least in the absence of further evidence, given the nature and scale of the offending and the role he, on the allegations, played in it.
3. Further, his counsel referred in submissions to previous treatment from the psychologist Mr Lamberti from 2011 and to a report from the psychologist Mr Newton that was said to establish that the applicant had received treatment from 2008 to 2011 and that had resulted in a 'sustained abstinence' from 2008. It was his submission that the applicant had suffered a recent relapse following many years of staying out of trouble. Their reports were not put before me, but the psychologist Ms Cutler took a history of the applicant relapsing 'approximately three to four months ago' following his arrest for what must have been the episode of alleged family violence. There was otherwise nothing said that explains the conviction for possessing a handgun (which was, apparently, loaded) in August 2010 or, what I was told, was $100,000 in cash.
4. The applicant submitted as relevant factors, among other things, that he had family support, was the main breadwinner for his family, that his brother was hospitalised with leukaemia, their car washing businesses might be lost if he were not granted bail, and his wife was at risk of not being able to pay the rent if he were not granted bail. However, and despite the respondent adverting to the fact in their written submissions filed in advance of the hearing and my noting this when the matter was first before me last week before it was adjourned to yesterday, no evidence was led relating to the financial state (past or present) of the businesses or of the applicant's contribution to family expenditure from their or his earnings, or as to the financial position of his wife. That reduces considerably the strength of that submission and consideration.
5. The respondent did not, ultimately, submit that there was an unacceptable risk that the applicant would interfere with witnesses. That was a sensible concession, as what were initially characterised as threats were, in my view, likely explicable as a person needing confirmation that 74 kilograms of drugs had in fact been taken by the police, rather than taken by someone else.
6. I accept the respondent's submission that the applicant, on the allegations, is not only seemingly a trusted member of the criminal organisation but is now in a situation where he may be considered responsible by others in the organisation for having lost something like $20 million worth of cocaine. There is a real risk that, if granted bail, the applicant would become under pressure to remedy this situation by engaging in further serious criminal acts.
7. I accept that the applicant will face a difficult time in custody, and that if he is not released on bail his family will miss his support and that he will be saddened by his inability to be with his brother and that his businesses may be affected. These are all matters in his favour on the application but none of those matters is exceptional in and of itself, but, of course, the matters must be considered as a whole, along with all the other circumstances.
8. Although I consider the delay, the benefit to the applicant of his being able to receive mental health treatment in the community and to visit his brother, and the provision of the bail guarantee, to be weighty factors, I am not satisfied, on balance, and having regard to all the matters set out above, that the circumstances sufficiently differ from the norm to amount to exceptional circumstances that justify the grant of bail for this serious charge.
9. As I mentioned at the beginning, I make this assessment having regard to the overarching importance of maximising, to the greatest extent possible, the safety of the community and persons affected by crime, while at the same time recognising the importance of the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty.
10. Counsel for the applicant referred me to the case of Re DD, in which an applicant charged with possession of nearly half a kilogram of methylamphetamine was granted bail. However, in that case the connection between the alleged offending and the applicant's substance abuse problem was more evident and the availability of structured drug rehabilitation was a weighty factor towards exceptional circumstances being found, and the alleged possession involved delivering a parcel rather than removing a large volume of imported drugs from a shipping container.

1. As I have noted, the alleged offending suggests that the applicant was a trusted link in a sophisticated criminal organisation with international links and substantial financing, he faces many years in prison, and the case against him is strong.
2. Were it necessary for me to do so, and for the essentially the same reasons, I would have concluded that, even with the surety and offered conditions, the applicant does pose an unacceptable risk of committing a Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 offence if released on bail.
3. There is also a risk that the applicant might fail to surrender himself into custody. On the allegations, he has serious and international criminal connections. If he forms the view, that he may well might, that he is likely to be found guilty and to be sentenced to something like a decade in prison, then he may wish to abscond. However, in light of the presence of the bail guarantee, and the applicant's lack of travel documents and the presence of his family in Victoria, I would not have concluded that the risk of his failing to surrender into custody was unacceptable.

[1] A pseudonym is used in the version of this ruling that has been made public.

[2] Bail Act 1977 (Vic), s 4A(1A).

[3] Ibid s 4A(3).

[4] Ibid ss 3AAA, 4A, 4E. The 'surrounding circumstances' also include whether there is in force a family violence intervention order against the applicant and the availability of treatment or bail support - neither of which is a factor in these applications.

[5] Re Thickens [2024] VSC 743, [61].

[6] Bail Act 1977 (Vic) s 4E(1).

[7] Ibid s 4E(3).

[8] Ibid, s 1B.