CRIMINAL LAW - Bail - Family violence offending - Use of a firearm - Exceptional circumstances - Significant and relevant prior convictions - Applicant relies on delay of two years; the availability of residential rehabilitation at 'The Cottage'; and 'triable issues' - Respondent concedes that it is 'open' to the Court to find exceptional circumstances exist - Unacceptable risk alleged by respondent - Exceptional circumstances not established - Applicant an unacceptable risk in at least one of the ways alleged by the respondent - Bail refused - Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E; Rajic v The Queen

(a) Reckless conduct endangering life (two charges);

(b) Reckless conduct endangering serious injury (three charges);

(c) Being a prohibited person use a firearm;

(d) Recklessly discharge a firearm at vehicle;

(e) Dangerous driving;

(f) Common assault;

(g) Contravene an interim family violence intervention order ('interim FVIO') (three charges);

(h) Persistent contravention of an interim FVIO; and

(i) Attempt to pervert the course of justice.

2 At the time of the alleged offending, the applicant was on bail for a Schedule 2 offence pursuant to the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ('Act').[1] He is alleged to have committed indictable offences in the course of which the applicant, or any person involved in the commission of the offence, used or threatened to use a firearm.[2] It is common ground that the applicant must satisfy the Court that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail.

3 At the time of the alleged offending, the applicant and the complainant, KR, had been in a relationship for approximately six months.

4 In the early hours of the morning of 24 April 2024, the applicant and KR were at KR's house in Cobden. The applicant was jealous of KR spending time with other people and a verbal argument ensued. KR left the premises; when she returned a short time later, the applicant was not there. At around 4:00am the applicant returned to the property with the co‑offender, Joshua Bond ('Bond'). Bond parked his Ford Falcon sedan ('Ford') on the nature strip and remained outside. The applicant went in and continued to argue with KR. KR became scared and left her house in a vehicle registered to the applicant. The applicant and Bond followed in the Ford, with the applicant driving.

5 KR observed that the applicant and Bond were following her. As she was attempting a U‑turn in Adam Street, Bond discharged a firearm from the passenger side of the Ford which hit the rear of KR's vehicle. KR is unsure whether one or two gunshots were fired. The applicant and Bond continued to follow KR, ramming the rear of the vehicle she was driving, causing the rear bumper bar to fall off. The bumper bar was later recovered by police.

6 KR drove to the local CFA and hid from the applicant while she called emergency services. The call was placed at 4:18am. Police and paramedics attended and spoke to KR, who was uninjured. Upon their arrival, Police observed a gunshot hole in the rear boot area of the vehicle along with damage consistent with a collision.

7 KR returned home later that morning and discovered the applicant out the front of her address. At 7:45am, KR let the applicant into her home and notified police who arrived a short time later and arrested the applicant.

8 The applicant participated in a record of interview. He denied the offending. He claimed he had booked an Airbnb for himself on 23 April and went to sleep at around 3:00am. He stated that he hitchhiked into Cobden and arrived at KR's address sometime before dawn, whereupon he was arrested shortly afterwards by police.

9 CCTV footage obtained from various cameras depicts the following:

• At 4:14am, two vehicles can be seen turning into Adam Street and driving at a fast rate of speed.
• At an unspecified time, the sound of two gunshots can be heard followed by the sound of two vehicles colliding.
• At 4:14am, following the sound of a loud bang, a man can be heard yelling 'fuck off'.

10 Police also discovered text and audio messages between the applicant and KR from the morning of the 24 April. These messages include the applicant calling KR derogatory names such as 'slut', 'fucking whore' and 'dog'; accusing her of performing sexual acts on other males; and a voice recording at 4:02am stating 'You're gunna get shot in a minute ya fuckwit'. Following the incident, the applicant continued to send threating messages to KR. At 6:58am, the applicant messaged KR demanding keys to a vehicle and threatening, 'Or I'm gonna shoot holes in ya wall'.

11 Police located Bond's burnt‑out Ford sometime later. The firearm was never located.

12 On 26 April 2024, an interim FVIO was made naming KR as the protected person and the applicant as the respondent. The interim FVIO prohibited the applicant from contacting or communicating with KR. It is alleged that between 3 May and 12 June, while on remand, the applicant called KR over 200 times. The calls were made under the alias 'Ebony King', and KR willingly participated in these calls.

13 On 12 June 2024, the interim FVIO was varied to allow contact between the applicant and KR.

14 On 3 May, the applicant spoke with KR in breach of the interim IVO. During the course of the call, he told KR that his phone needed to be wiped and 'some bitch gave it to them'. KR told the applicant that she did not give police the phone. The applicant asked KR if police had taken his jacket, and she said no. The applicant told KR to wash the jacket with bleach or just get rid of it.

15 Police have recordings of all prison calls, together with the prison telephone records.

16 The applicant declined to be interviewed about these matters.

17 All matters commenced in the summary stream. On 5 August 2024, a bail application was listed and withdrawn by the applicant.

18 On 9 August, the prosecution sought to transfer the matters to the indictable stream. The applicant opposed the filing hearing.

19 On 30 September, the applicant unsuccessfully opposed the uplift of the matters to the indictable stream. All matters were subsequently listed for a contested committal hearing on 2 June 2025.

20 The applicant has unsuccessfully applied for bail twice in the Magistrates' Court; once on 15 January 2025 and again on 28 March 2025. On 28 March, the applicant relied on 'new facts', namely that he could attend The Cottage residential rehabilitation program in Shepparton.

21 At the time of the offending, the applicant was on three sets of bail. On 17 June 2023, the applicant was bailed on charges of driving while exceeding the prescribed concentration of drugs and failing an oral fluid test. On 8 January 2024, the applicant was further bailed on charges of trafficking and possessing drugs of dependence and dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime. On 18 April 2024, less than a week before the incident alleged here, the applicant was again bailed on charges of possessing drugs of dependence and two charges of possess a prohibited weapon.

22 All these matters were consolidated and dealt with on 9 August 2024. I note the trafficking charge which placed the applicant into the 'exceptional circumstances' category for the purpose of this application was withdrawn. The applicant received a total effective sentence of two months' imprisonment, with 67 days of pre‑sentence detention reckoned as time already served.[3]

23 The co‑offender, Bond, was arrested and charged on 25 April 2024. His contested committal is also listed on 2 June 2025. Bond was refused bail on 16 December 2024. He remains on remand for these matters.

24 In determining an application for bail, the Court is required to have regard to the guiding principles set out in s 1B(1) of the Act.

25 In considering whether exceptional circumstances exist, the Court must take into account the relevant 'surrounding circumstances' including, but not limited to, those found in s 3AAA(1) of the Act.

26 If satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail, the Court must apply the unacceptable risk test.[4] Bail must be refused if the respondent satisfies the Court that there is a risk of the kind set out in s 4E(1)(a) of the Act, and that such risk is an unacceptable risk. In considering whether any relevant risk is unacceptable, the Court must again have regard to the surrounding circumstances, and consider whether there are any conditions of bail that may be imposed to mitigate the risk so that it is not unacceptable.[5]

27 The respondent bears the burden of proving both the existence of the risk, and that the risk is unacceptable.[6]

28 Further, s 5AAAA of the Act provides that, in considering the release of the applicant on bail, the Court must:

(a) make inquiries of the prosecutor as to whether there is in force a FVIO, family violence safety notice or recognised domestic violence order made or issued against the applicant; and

(b) in circumstances where the applicant is charged with family violence offences, consider whether - if the applicant were released on bail - there would be a risk that he would commit family violence, and if so, whether that risk could be mitigated by the imposition of a bail condition or the making of a FVIO.

29 The applicant is 41 years' old. He has two younger brothers with whom he has limited contact. The applicant has an ex‑partner, who is the mother of his two sons, aged 17 and 21. His ex‑partner is a former substance user who now works as a drug and alcohol counsellor. She is supportive of the applicant but he would not be permitted to reside with her. According to the applicant, he has contact with his mother, but his parents are not willing to provide an address for him unless he significantly rehabilitates. The applicant possesses vocational skills, including as a butcher, truck driver and caravan technician. He currently does not hold a valid licence and is not permitted to drive.

30 It is proposed that the applicant, if granted bail, will reside at The Cottage, a residential drug rehabilitation facility located in Shepparton. The applicant has been assessed as suitable for their 12‑week program. A bed is reserved and available from today. At the conclusion of the 12 weeks, it is hoped the applicant can reside at The Cottage's transitional house, or that other suitable accommodation can be found. There is a 'possibility' he could reside with family, if he was able to convince them he had turned his life around.

31 The applicant has a long history of drug abuse commencing at age 15. He has used cannabis, methamphetamine, MDMA, heroin and GHB. According to The Cottage material, at the time of the alleged offending the applicant was using methamphetamine daily but no other drugs.

32 The applicant has a lengthy criminal history. In 2003, aged 20, the applicant was convicted of being drunk in a public place (discharged), resisting police and behaving in an offensive manner in a public place. He was convicted and placed on a three‑ month Community Based Order. His next offending was not until March 2009, when he was fined for behaving in an offensive manner in a public place. Later the same month, the applicant was convicted of affray and recklessly causing serious injury and sentenced to six months' imprisonment to be served by way of an Intensive Corrections Order.

33 The bulk of the applicant's offending commenced in 2016. In October 2016, the applicant received his first Community Correction Order ('CCO') for charges including contravene a FVIO, intentionally destroy property, unlawful assault and contravene a bail condition. In February 2017, he was dealt with for breaching that order together with further offences including contravening a FVIO, intentionally damage property, intentionally cause injury, recklessly cause injury and commit an indictable offence while on bail. He received two months' imprisonment and a further CCO; a condition of the CCO was that he undergo a Men's Behavioural Change program. The applicant breached the order. In June 2017, he was dealt with for charges including recklessly cause injury, contravene a FVIO, burglary and theft, together with breach of his CCO. He received six months' imprisonment and a further CCO, which he went on to breach. In August 2017, he received a further CCO for charges of contravening a personal safety intervention order. In December 2017, the applicant was dealt with for breaching the CCO imposed in June, and the order was varied and extended. During 2018 and 2019, the applicant continued to breach his CCO, and the order was repeatedly varied and extended.

34 Between December 2021 and August 2024, the applicant appeared in the Magistrates Court a further six times and was dealt with for offences including contravening a FVIO; criminal damage; theft of a motor vehicle; affray; intentionally damaging property; assaulting an emergency worker on duty; possessing drugs of dependence; dealing with property suspected to be proceeds of crime; and possession of a prohibited weapon. He received one further CCO (which he breached), four fines and three short terms of imprisonment of nine days, 42 days and two months.

35 Overall and since 2016, the applicant has breached his CCO on 12 occasions. He has seven convictions for contravening bail conditions, five convictions for committing indictable offences while on bail, seven convictions for contravening a FVIO and three convictions for contravening a personal safety intervention order. He was on both bail and a CCO at the time of this alleged offending.

36 The applicant is recorded on the police database as being the perpetrator of family violence on 16 occasions.

37 There is a current interim FVIO in place protecting KR. Currently, the order as varied allows the applicant to communicate with KR and be within 20 metres of her, but only if the applicant is in custody. If granted bail, the applicant will no longer be able to see or communicate with KR.

38 The Court was provided with two letters authored by Mr Aaron Gilhooley, general manager of The Cottage, together with an 'AOD Comprehensive Assessment'[7] by Timothy Ridgeway. Mr Ridgeway is an 'assessor/coach/counsellor/facilitator' employed by The Cottage.

39 The Cottage runs a 12‑week drug rehabilitation program delivered in three phases. The first phase is the most restrictive and includes no personal phone, no visitors, twice‑weekly urine testing, and mandatory attendance at meetings and workshops. The subsequent phases are less restrictive, and residents may be granted unsupervised offsite day leave if they are eligible. By the third phase, eligible residents may be permitted overnight leave. Twice‑weekly urine testing continues throughout all phases of the program.

40 Mr Ridgeway's opinion is that the applicant experienced 'early trauma', and a recent neuropsychological assessment confirmed a diagnosis of ADHD, which was previously undiagnosed and untreated. During the initial three months, the focus would be on stabilising the applicant's withdrawal from substances and reducing the risk of relapse. Additionally, the applicant 'will engage in an individualised family violence rehabilitation program'. Mr Ridgeway stated that the applicant presented with a number of risk factors, including a lack of insight; a tendency to defend or downplay his behaviour and externalise blame; an extensive criminal history; and past non‑compliance with court orders including FVIOs. However, Mr Ridgeway considered the applicant had 'genuine motivation' to rehabilitate driven by 'parental responsibility and family support'.

41 Mr Gilhooley gave evidence on the application. He said that following the 12‑week program, a transitional house run by The Cottage may be available, but there are requirements that must be met. The person must either find employment or be undertaking additional education. They must also engage in a service position within the Narcotics Anonymous program. If the applicant 'really engages', they will look at whether he is eligible to reside at the transitional house.

42 Mr Gilhooley's evidence insofar as it concerned Mr Ridgeway and how The Cottage delivers family violence counselling was less than satisfactory. Mr Ridgeway attends The Cottage at least twice a week, and runs small or individualised counselling sessions in the afternoon. One of the components of those sessions is 'family violence treatment'. When asked about Mr Ridgeway's qualifications and ability to deliver family violence programs, Mr Gilhooley said Mr Ridgeway has a diploma in AOD and was 'some sort of coach or something'. He does ADHD coaching and 'the family violence stuff'. Mr Ridgeway was also a perpetrator of family violence in the past and so 'has an understanding of it and how he broke it'. He uses 'some of the tools' but Mr Gilhooley could not articulate what they were. Ultimately, Mr Gilhooley agreed he knew Mr Ridgeway has a diploma in AOD and was 'not sure about the other ones'.

43 The applicant relies on a combination of three factors to establish exceptional circumstances: first, a delay of two years between charge and trial. Second, there are triable issues, and on 25 April 2024, KR contacted police and said she wished to retract her statement. She said she was 'making it up'. Third, the availability of residential rehabilitation and treatment at The Cottage.

44 The applicant relies on the same factors in support of the submission that the respondent has not established that the applicant is an unacceptable risk in the ways alleged by the respondent. The applicant squarely acknowledges that he has a prior history that involves family violence offending and breaching multiple court orders including bail, intervention orders and CCOs. The applicant submits that any risk can be rendered acceptable through the imposition of conditions, and by requiring the applicant to reside at The Cottage and participate in their rehabilitation program. The applicant also noted that the committal is in four weeks' time, and at that point (assuming the applicant is committed) he will have to formally reapply for trial bail. This will provide an opportunity for a court to review the applicant's progress at The Cottage, and will further reduce risk.

45 The applicant remains in a relationship with KR, and the risk he will breach the interim FVIO and contact her is mitigated by the fact that his liberty will be at stake. That is, unlike when he was in custody, if he contacts KR and breaches the interim FVIO, he will also breach bail and will return to custody. This will effectively deter the applicant from contacting KR.

46 Somewhat surprisingly, the respondent accepts it would be 'open' to the Court to find that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail. When pressed as to why, the respondent relied on delay and the applicant's willingness to attend The Cottage, even though the respondent does not accept that bailing the applicant to reside at The Cottage would sufficiently reduce any alleged risk.

47 Bail is opposed by the respondent on the basis that the applicant is an unacceptable risk of committing a schedule 1 or schedule 2 offence; otherwise endangering the safety or welfare of any other person, whether by committing an offence that has that effect or by any other means; and interfering with a witness or otherwise obstructing the course of justice.

48 In response to the applicant's contentions, and in addressing the surrounding circumstances found in s 3AAA of the Act and the question of unacceptable risk, the respondent relies on the following matters:

(a) The alleged offending is a grave example of family violence of high order seriousness. The applicant was fuelled by grievance. The shooting took place at 4:15am in a public street and was planned. It represents a significant escalation in the applicant's criminal conduct.

(b) The applicant has relevant prior convictions.

(c) The applicant is facing a term of imprisonment that will exceed any time he will spend on remand should bail be refused.

(d) The prosecution case is strong. If KR attends but proves uncooperative, the prosecution has options they may utilise, including s 38 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) ('Evidence Act'). Further, there is other evidence that points to the applicant's involvement in the crime.

(e) The alleged offending occurred while the applicant was on bail and on a CCO.

(f) The applicant has shown a general disregard for intervention orders and other court orders in the past.

49 The respondent submits that the Court should have serious doubts as to whether the applicant is truly willing or able to comply with The Cottage program, given his history. The proposed bail conditions are insufficient to reduce the applicant's risk to an acceptable level.

50 Further, the applicant is a real risk of obstructing the course of justice. He has already sought to conceal his involvement in the crime by burning the offending car. The firearm has not been located. The applicant contacted KR from custody and in breach of the interim FVIO, directing her to wipe his mobile phone and wash a jacket that may connect him to the offending. The Court can have little confidence that the applicant will desist in these efforts, given the seriousness of the alleged offending; his strong prospects of conviction; and the fact he is facing a significant term of imprisonment if convicted.

51 The Act does not define what may amount to exceptional circumstances. The threshold is high, but it is not an impossible standard. Exceptional circumstances may be established by a combination of factors which, by themselves, may not be considered exceptional.[8] The respondent's concession that it is 'open' for the Court to find that exceptional circumstances exist is relevant but not determinative. It is for the Court to determine whether exceptional circumstances have been established.

52 In Rajic v The Queen,[9] T Forrest J stated:

It is well established that exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated by one factor, or a combination of factors. What is demonstrated, however, must be exceptional. It is insufficient for an applicant to demonstrate that he or she is deserving of sympathy, or that a persuasive case has been mounted for bail. The circumstances must be genuinely unusual or out of the ordinary before the test is satisfied.[10]

53 I acknowledge the applicant is presumed to be innocent and contests the charges. However, I am required to take into account the nature and seriousness of the alleged offending, including whether it is a serious example of the offence. KR had left her own home in an effort to escape the applicant. Pursuing her and firing at least one shot into the rear of her vehicle while she was driving away is, on any view, a very serious example of family violence. Ramming her vehicle while she was driving is also very serious. The prosecution case relies on complicity and the gravity of the applicant's conduct is not reduced because Bond fired the gun. It appears Bond was there at the applicant's request, and it was the applicant, not Bond, who was angry with KR.

54 The prosecution case on the breach of interim FVIO charges, and the charge of attempt to pervert the course of justice, is very strong, given the calls are all recorded.

55 The applicant's submissions that KR is no longer assisting or 'available to' the police, and that, without her evidence, the prosecution will not be able to proceed to trial on the charges arising from the 24 April incident, appear somewhat misguided. The applicant seems to believe, or perhaps hope, that KR will not attend to give evidence at the committal. KR's statement was video recorded and she will be subpoenaed to attend. Failing to comply with a subpoena is a form of contempt of court punishable by imprisonment. KR has two children, and she may well choose to attend court rather than commit contempt and risk arrest. A witness' refusal to be sworn or affirmed, or to answer a question when under oath or affirmation, are clear examples of contempt in the face of the court. The prosecution have pathways available when a complainant proves to be a reluctant witness. These include s 38 of the Evidence Act,[11] and the hearsay provisions if the complainant meets the definition of 'unavailable'.[12] Finally, the case does not 'stand or fall' on KR's evidence alone; it would be weakened, but the Crown would still have a triable case.

56 The applicant has been on remand for just over one year, although for two months of that time he was serving a sentence. He faces a short delay of four weeks until committal, and if committed, a further delay of approximately 12 months before trial. This will amount to an overall delay of approximately 24 months between charge and trial. I accept this is a substantial delay and an important factor when considering whether exceptional circumstances have been established. It is not disputed that if convicted of the most serious charges, the applicant faces a term of imprisonment which will likely exceed any time on remand.

57 The applicant's criminal history is concerning. He has an appalling record of breaching court orders, which demonstrates he has little regard for the authority of the courts. His history of family violence offending is also very concerning, and he has committed acts of family violence against different partners over a number of years.

58 The availability of 84 days of supervised, residential rehabilitation is a significant factor in the applicant's favour. Courts have recognised the desirability of allowing applicants to commence rehabilitation whilst on bail.[13] However, it is not always sufficient to either establish exceptional circumstances or otherwise ameliorate risk.[14] There is some link between the applicant's drug use and his offending, however there are other matters that drive his family violence offending. According to Mr Ridgeway, the past family violence charges suggest a pattern of relational difficulties, emotional reactivity and power/control dynamics in personal relationships. He lacks insight, and tends to downplay his behaviour and blame the victim. On the evidence before me, The Cottage program will do little to address these issues. According to Mr Ridgeway, protective factors include the support of the applicant's ex‑partner and 'stable housing with family'. Based on what I am told, the latter is not available. Mr Ridgeway did not address the current relationship between the applicant and KR.

59 In my view, and giving full weight to delay and all other matters relied upon by the applicant, I am unable to conclude that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail. However, if I am wrong about that, I consider that the applicant poses an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety and welfare of any other person. My reasons for this conclusion overlap with the matters I have already been through.

60 Discharging a firearm at a moving vehicle in a public place is an extremely dangerous piece of conduct which places anyone in the vicinity at real risk of harm. As noted above, at the time of the alleged offending, the applicant was on three sets of bail. He was also serving a CCO at the time which had been imposed for offences including breaching a FVIO.[15] In my view, it is quite remarkable how many CCOs the applicant has received, given his pattern of continually breaching such orders. He has been given numerous opportunities and second and third chances to comply with the orders.

61 I accept that this is the longest continual period of time the applicant has spent in custody, and that has no doubt had some salutary effect on him.

62 I do not consider that requiring the applicant to reside at The Cottage and participate in 84 days of drug rehabilitation and treatment is sufficient to reduce the risk to an acceptable level, given the applicant's criminal history, pattern of family violence, and blatant disregard for multiple court orders. The applicant's children are aged 17 and 21, and while I accept he would like to improve and rebuild the relationship he has with his sons, I am doubtful that being 'driven by parental responsibility' provides a particularly strong foundation for change.

63 I also found the evidence as to the applicant's recommended treatment somewhat confused. Mr Ridgeway seems to lack any relevant professional experience or qualifications to deliver family violence counselling, which is not the focus of The Cottage program in any event.[16] According to the material, The Cottage program addresses 'long‑term mental illness, personality disorders and drug addiction'. Relying on the assessment of Mr Ridgeway, it is said to be 'essential' that the applicant engage in 'trauma informed therapy'. This may include Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing therapy or Narrative Exposure therapy. The applicant would also benefit from an 'individualised' family violence program. Some issues 'may need' to be addressed through an 'offender rehabilitation program', and such a program should include 'close collaboration with his parole officer and legal representatives' to ensure compliance, and engagement in [cognitive behavioural therapy].[17] Targeted ADHD management including consultation with a psychiatrist will also be 'essential' to support the applicant's overall functioning. The Cottage program runs for 84 days. Their focus is on drug rehabilitation treatment, which includes pharmacological support to assist in maintaining abstinence, group therapy and relapse prevention strategies. There is a limit as to what else could be meaningfully commenced, delivered or achieved.

64 If the applicant is released from custody, he will not be permitted to approach, contact or communicate with KR. Given the applicant's history, I consider it unlikely that the terms of any order will meaningfully reduce the risk of the applicant contacting KR. It is true that if he does and is caught, he will return to custody, but such a risk has not deterred him in the past. KR is a key prosecution witness and remains loyal to the applicant. There is a certainly some risk that the applicant will seek to prevent KR testifying. The fact that KR may be amenable to such a course does not change the quality of such conduct. If the applicant resumes contact with KR in a non‑custodial setting, KR will be at risk of family violence.

65 I have already referred to the applicant's criminal history and his history of breaching court orders. I will not repeat those matters, save to say they contribute greatly to the reasons why I am satisfied that, at a minimum, the applicant poses an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of any other person, whether by committing an offence that has that effect or by any other means.

66 The Court is not satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail. Further, the Court is satisfied that the applicant is an unacceptable risk in at least one of the ways alleged by the respondent.

[1] Bail Act 1977 (Vic) s 4AA(2)(c)(i) ('Bail Act'). The applicant was on bail for trafficking in a drug of dependence, which is a sch 2 offence.

[3] 67 days is greater than two months, however that is what is recorded. The applicant was also convicted and fined on the charges that were 'fine only' offences.

[4] Bail Act, ss 4A(4), 4D(a).

[5] Ibid s 4E(3).

[6] Ibid s 4D(2).

[7] 'AOD' meaning Alcohol and Other Drugs.

[8] See Re CT [2018] VSC 559, [64]-[66] (Champion J) and the cases referred to therein.

[9] [2016] VSC 27 ('Rajic').

[11] If KR attends court and resiles from her evidence, the prosecution may apply to have her declared 'unfavourable'.

[12] If KR is excused from giving evidence pursuant to s 18 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) ('Evidence Act'), she will be an 'unavailable' witness and the prosecution may seek to rely on her statement. See DPP v Nicholls [2010] VSC 397; Fletcher v The Queen [2015] VSCA 146. If KR does not attend and the prosecution take all reasonable steps to compel her to give evidence without success, she will be 'unavailable' to give evidence and the Crown may seek to admit her statement pursuant to s 65 of the Evidence Act.

[13] Rajic, [25] and the cases referred to therein.

[14] Re Taylor [2020] VSC 146, [30] and the cases referred to therein.

[15] The Community Correction Order had not been imposed for a sch 1 or sch 2 offence, and thus s 4AA(2)(d)(iv) of the Bail Act has no application.

[16] Mr Ridgeway's relevant professional experience is outlined at the commencement of his report. None of it includes, even indirectly, family violence training or counselling.

[17] The assessment refers more than once to the 'parole officer' and the need to collaborate with this person. The applicant does not have a parole officer.