Re Altaee [2025] VSC 720 (19 November 2025)

1 By application dated 15 October 2025, Omar Altaee ('the applicant') applies for a grant of bail from this Court.

2 The applicant is a 29‑year‑old man who seeks bail on two groups of charges. The first pertains to offending alleged to have occurred on 22 January 2024, and comprises:

(a) kidnapping;

(b) theft;

(c) false imprisonment;

(d) two charges of aggravated burglary;

(e) intentionally causing injury;

(f) recklessly causing injury;

(g) possession of prohibited weapon without exemption or approval; and

(h) assault with a weapon.

3 The second pertains to offending alleged to have occurred on 14 and 28 March 2025, and comprises:

(a) two charges of aggravated burglary;

(b) impersonating a police officer;

(c) assault with a weapon;

(d) common law assault;

(e) prohibited person using imitation firearm;

(f) prohibited person carrying imitation firearm;

(g) possession of registered general category handgun; and

(h) possession of a drug of dependence (amphetamine).

4 The application is supported by the following relevant materials:

(a) an affidavit affirmed by James Valos, solicitor, dated 14 October 2025, including the reports of Dr Matt Treeby (dated 11 April 2024) and psychologist Ms Sandra Cokorilo (dated 18 July 2025);

(b) a further affidavit affirmed by Zenah Altaee, dated 27 October 2025;

(c) a letter from Assistant Commissioner Jenny Hosking of Corrections Victoria, dated 29 October 2025; and

(d) a letter from Ms Sharon Bourke of East Side Recovery, dated 31 October 2025.

5 In response, the respondent relies on the affidavit of Kail Marshall, solicitor, dated 27 October 2025, with attachments.

6 Following his arrest on 7 February 2024, the applicant was remanded in custody, and was refused bail on two occasions. He was subsequently granted bail on 7 June 2024, with conditions.

7 On 31 July 2024, the applicant was committed to stand trial in the County Court. Following an initial Directions Hearing on 28 August 2024, the proceeding was adjourned to 30 October 2024 for a further Directions Hearing, and the applicant's bail was extended on the existing conditions. On 3 September 2024, a bail variation was granted to permit the applicant to attend his wedding in Sydney.

8 At the Directions Hearing, a Case Assessment Hearing was scheduled for 11 February 2025. As defence was not in funds at that time, the matter was adjourned to 28 February 2025. On that day, a warrant was issued due to the applicant's failure to appear before a Judicial Registrar.

9 On 29 March 2025, the applicant was arrested and remanded following further occasions of offending. On 19 May 2025, a bail application was heard before his Honour Judge Tinney in the County Court. Bail was refused pursuant to section 4C(1) of the Bail Act 1977, on the basis that his Honour was not satisfied that a 'compelling reason' existed that justified a grant of bail.

10 Counsel for the applicant explained that many of the 27 offences allegedly committed between 22 January and 6 February 2024 have been resolved, such that the only matters that remain from that period are the kidnapping group of charges regarding the events of 22 January 2024. However, the applicant also now faces the outstanding matters regarding offences alleged to have been committed by him on 14 and 28 March 2025 during the period when he was on the grant of bail from the County Court. These matters also form part of the present application for bail.

11 Following a further Directions Hearing on 4 June 2025, the Office of Public Prosecutions rejected a plea offer submitted by the applicant. The matter is currently listed for trial in the County Court, commencing 15 June 2026.

12 On 22 January 2024, at approximately 6:36am, the applicant, AT and EK left AT's room at the Palms Motel in Footscray in a Holden motor vehicle. Shortly thereafter, they arrived at an abandoned barber shop ('the barbershop') in Footscray, where EK remained in the vehicle while AT took items from inside the barbershop and loaded them into the boot of the vehicle.

13 CCTV footage shows that, at approximately 9:00am, the applicant attended the Palms Motel in a stolen white Toyota. The applicant, who was on a video call with EK, knocked on AT's motel room door and, when she answered, pointed his phone at her and uttered words to the effect of 'Is that her?'. When EK stated, 'Yes', the applicant pushed his way inside, began searching the room, and accused her of taking a bag belonging to EK. AT observed that the applicant was carrying an extendable baton.

14 When he could not locate the bag, the applicant told AT to get into the white Toyota. The pair walked to the car, where the applicant produced a wooden baseball bat and demanded that AT get into the vehicle. She complied, and they left the Palms Motel in the white Toyota, arriving at the barbershop approximately one minute later. AT then exited the Toyota and entered the Holden to speak to EK. The applicant approached the Holden and told AT, 'You know this is your fault for leaving your mate'. She repeatedly informed the applicant that she had to leave, but he told her that she could not do so until the bag was found.

15 At approximately 9:29am, the applicant drove the Toyota away from the area. AT remained with EK, who told her that the bag contained money and methamphetamine and that it was best that she stay until the applicant returned. Approximately five minutes later, the applicant returned in the same vehicle. Another person, KP, arrived on foot shortly thereafter.

16 At approximately 10:04am, the applicant told AT to get into the Toyota. She complied, and the group drove back to the Palms Motel and entered AT's room. The applicant shut the door while EK and KP searched for the bag. When AT tried to get a cigarette, the applicant smacked her hand with the extendable baton. She tried to get to the door, but her path was blocked by KP and EK.

17 The applicant received a phone call and left the room. EK eventually located the bag in a pile of washing out the front of the motel room, though the items inside were gone. EK called the applicant back and the three of them advanced on AT. The applicant is alleged to have hit at AT with the baton, striking her in the head and causing a large laceration.

18 When AT attempted to escape, the applicant trapped her body between the door and the frame and stated, 'Get back in the room or I will kill you'. AT managed to exit the door, screamed 'Someone call the police', and ran towards the front of the motel. The motel cleaner, ER, observed that she was bleeding from her head. ER applied pressure to the laceration while the motel manager called police. AT was taken to Footscray Hospital, where she received treatment for the laceration to her head.

19 At approximately 10:20am, the applicant, EK and KP fled the scene in the Toyota before police arrived.

20 On the afternoon of 14 March 2025, an alleged co‑offender to the applicant, TB, gained access to a home unit ('Unit 1') in Clayton South through an unlocked garage door. The premises was vacant at the time, and TB stole clothing, folders, empty boxes, and a laptop, computer, and a computer mouse. CCTV footage shows him leaving the address in a grey vehicle before re‑attending on foot and gaining access through an unlocked back door.

21 Shortly thereafter, TB returned to the footpath, and another co‑offender, HP, arrived in a white vehicle and parked behind a separate home unit at the same street address ('Unit 4'). The pair entered the master bedroom of Unit 4 and stole a wallet, travel bag, cash, a diamond ring, and miscellaneous paperwork. They then left the property with these items.

22 LI, who resided in Unit 1, returned home and discovered that there had been a break‑in. He phoned WX, who resided in Unit 4, to inform him. WX then came home to find that his home had also been broken into.

23 At approximately 11:27pm on the same day, LI became aware that the applicant was standing in the driveway of Unit 4. When LI opened his front door and asked, 'What's going on?', the applicant, who was wearing a badge around his neck, walked up to LI, introduced himself as a Sergeant, and made multiple demands for LI's name. LI became suspicious, and the applicant queried whether LI was refusing to comply with his order.

24 WX noticed the commotion and approached the front door, making a telephone gesture which LI interpreted as a message to call the police. The applicant informed WX that he was a Sergeant, and the two asked each other to produce some form of identification. When WX turned his back and began walking to Unit 4, the applicant followed him. WX opened his fly screen door, and the applicant grabbed it and refused to let him close it, so WX pushed him away to prevent him from gaining access to the unit.

25 The applicant then spoke the word 'attend' into his phone, whereupon TB walked up the path to the unit holding a handgun. TB raised the handgun, aimed at WX, then concealed it in his waistband. The applicant then equipped himself with a handgun which had been concealed on his person, and assaulted WX with it by hitting him on the top of the head. This caused a minor injury to WX's head, and blood was later found by police on the front porch.

26 The applicant then pushed WX into the unit and continued to assault him. After approximately five seconds, WX overpowered the applicant, pushed him onto the front porch, and shut both doors, causing the applicant and TB to flee. WX's son, who was present at the address, called 000 and requested police.

27 Detective Senior Constable Weekes identified the applicant, TB, and HP as the offenders based on the CCTV footage and mobile phone records. Police believed that the applicant was residing in an apartment in Footscray. They liaised with management of the address and found that CCTV showed the applicant entering apartment number 807, which was booked under the name Amar Altaee, the applicant.

28 At 11:50am on 28 March 2025, members of the Special Operations Group entered the apartment and located the applicant in bed. After raising the mattress, they discovered a pistol on the bed frame, and subsequently conducted a search under section 112Q of the Firearms Act 1996 (Vic). Also located in the apartment was a bag containing three small zip‑lock bags of a white substance believed to be methamphetamine. Later that day, the applicant provided a no comment interview to police.

29 The application in this matter is governed by the Bail Act 1977 ('the Act'). It is intended that the Act be applied and interpreted having regard to the guiding principles set out in section 1B(1), including maximising the safety of the community and persons affected by crime to the greatest extent possible; and taking account of the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty.[1]

30 Because the applicant is accused of a Schedule 1 offence (aggravated burglary), bail must be refused unless the Court is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail. The applicant bears the onus of satisfying the Court as to the existence of exceptional circumstances. In considering this test, pursuant to section 4A(3) of the Act, the Court must take into account the relevant surrounding circumstances, including those listed in section 3AAA(1) of the Act.

31 The phrase 'exceptional circumstances' is not defined in the Act, but its meaning has been considered in many decisions of this Court. As identified by Lasry J in Re Strachan,[2] it has been accepted that the circumstances relied upon must be such as to take the case 'out of the normal',[3] the threshold is high, but not an impossible standard to reach, and exceptional circumstances may established by a combination of circumstances which may not, by themselves, be considered exceptional.[4]

32 If satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail, the Court must then apply the unacceptable risk test. Bail must be refused if the Court is satisfied by the prosecutor that there is a risk that the applicant would engage in any of the conduct identified in section 4E(1) of the Act, and that such a risk is an unacceptable one.

33 In applying this test, pursuant to section 4E(3) of the Act, the Court must take into account 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 an unacceptable risk.

34 Because the applicant has committed an offence against section 77 of the Crimes Act 1958 (aggravated burglary), section 4F of the Act also applies. Section 4F(2) provides that:

For the purposes of section 4E, a risk that the accused would, if released on bail, commit a Schedule 1 offence or a Schedule 2 offence is an unacceptable risk unless the bail decision maker is satisfied that there is a high degree of probability that the accused would not commit an indictable offence referred to in subsection (1)(a) if released on bail.

35 Pursuant to section 5AAAA of the Act, the Court must make inquiries as to whether there is in force an FVIO made against the applicant, a family violence safety notice issued against the applicant, or a recognised DVO made against the applicant.

36 There is currently in force against the applicant an FVIO for the protection of his ex‑wife, Ms Mina Rahimi. The order, made on 31 January 2025, refers to the matter being listed for mention on 9 July 2025. The respondent has made inquiries in order to ascertain when the next listing date is, but asserts that 'the Magistrates' Court has confirmed that the order is still current and active as'[5] of 27 October 2025.

37 The applicant has an extensive criminal history appearing to date from July 2016. He has court outcomes involving relevant matters including armed robbery, burglary, theft, assault with a weapon, possession of weapons including firearms, recklessly causing injury, drug offences, committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, contravention of a Community Corrections Order, and serious driving offences on occasions involving reckless conduct towards persons with failures to obey police directions.

38 The applicant has received various dispositions including terms of imprisonment, fines, and Community Corrections Orders. His last court outcome was recorded in June 2025, and resulted in the imposition of a three month term of imprisonment.

39 It is to be noted that the County Court issued an arrest warrant for the applicant in relation to his failure to appear before that Court on 28 February 2025, and further that it is in that period before he was arrested, the applicant is alleged to have committed the offences of 14 and 28 March 2025.

40 The applicant was born in Melbourne on 7 March 1996, and is one of six children. He has a close relationship with his mother and siblings, but never met his biological father. The applicant reports that his stepfather was physically abusive towards him.

41 The applicant demonstrated behavioural disturbances from an early age, and was expelled from two secondary schools due to persistent disruptive conduct. Notwithstanding these disruptions, he completed a Certificate III in Automotive Technology. When the applicant was in Year 12, his sister died suddenly due to a cardiac condition, and he reports suffering from nightmares, anger, sadness, and guilt in relation to her death.

42 The applicant has a complex history of substance abuse. He began using tobacco and cannabis at age 14, and was introduced to methamphetamine at age 15. His drug use escalated significantly following his first traumatic brain injury, which will be discussed in further detail below. The applicant has also misused benzodiazepines, cocaine, and GHB, resulting in a polysubstance overdose on 11 January 2020. Between November 2023 and February 2024, the applicant was consuming 1.7 grams of methamphetamine daily. He maintained a period of abstinence from illicit drugs between April and December 2024, but relapsed on 31 December 2024 after taking MDMA.

43 The applicant reports two significant relationships in his lifetime. The first was a six‑month relationship in 2018, and the applicant reports that he attempted suicide when the relationship broke down. The second was a three‑month marriage in 2024. The applicant does not have any children.

44 The applicant relies upon eight factors which, in combination, are said to establish exceptional circumstances pursuant to section 4A of the Act. I have carefully considered each of these factors, and refer predominantly to those emphasised in oral argument.

45 Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant suffers from profound neurological and physical impairments that are incompatible with custodial life, and for which the applicant cannot receive adequate treatment in custody.

46 The applicant has sustained three significant traumatic brain injuries while in custody:

(a) In November 2016, the applicant was struck with a toaster oven and stomped on while unconscious. He experienced a five‑minute loss of consciousness, and his medical records indicate that he suffered a severe traumatic brain injury.

(b) In August 2017, the applicant was assaulted by an inmate or inmates and rendered unconscious. He was taken to the Royal Melbourne Hospital ('RMH') and remained in the Intensive Care Unit ('ICU') for two days.

(c) In July 2018, the applicant was assaulted by multiple inmates and rendered unconscious. He suffered a nasal fracture and a Grade 1 diffuse axonal injury secondary to his past brain trauma.

47 Neuropsychologist Dr Matt Treeby reports that, as a result of these incidents, the applicant suffers from a Major Neurocognitive Disorder secondary to Traumatic Brain Injury. Dr Treeby reports a total permanent impairment rating of 76%, and symptoms including headaches, right side, face, arm, and limb numbness, a right side facial droop, dysarthria, balance problems, emotional difficulties, and impaired executive function.

48 On 18 October 2025, the applicant was assaulted by an inmate at Western Plains Correctional Centre ('WPCC'). His medical records report that he was punched to the face several times, fell to the floor, lost consciousness, and was found unresponsive with blood on his mouth and nose. He was taken by ambulance to the RMH, where he was intubated and kept in the ICU.

49 On 27 October 2025, the RMH contacted WPCC to discuss the applicant's possible transfer and enquired whether WPCC's Sub‑acute Ward could accommodate the applicant's required daily occupational therapy and physiotherapy sessions. The RMH was advised that WPCC could only provide physiotherapy three times per week, and Occupational Therapy once per week. The RMH also considered transferring the applicant to the St Augustine's Unit at St Vincent's Hospital. Counsel for the applicant submits that, for reasons that 'are unclear',[6] 'St Augustine's has no facilities for him'.[7]

50 On 5 November 2025, the applicant was discharged from the RMH to the Sub‑acute Ward of the Metropolitan Remand Centre, with a Discharge Management Plan recommending that he attend follow‑up appointments with his general practitioner and the St Vincent's neurology team.[8] He instructs that he is housed alone in a cell with a hospital bed, and under 24‑hour lockdown.

51 Both Ms Cokorilo and Dr Treeby report that the applicant's physical and mental conditions can render him unable to adequately care for himself, and that he requires ongoing assistance with regular tasks. Despite this requirement, the applicant reported to Ms Cokorilo that he has not been provided with a carer during the current remand period. He thus reports enduring long periods of time without eating, showering, or having his bedsheets changed.

52 Counsel for the applicant submits that exceptional circumstances are demonstrated by the combination of his physical condition, the inability of that condition to be adequately treated in custody, and, as discussed in further detail below, the nature of the care and treatment resources available to the applicant at his sister's home.

53 Counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant's frequent seizure episodes place him at risk of physical injury and are significantly worsened by the custodial environment. It is submitted that the complex interaction between his substance issues, seizure activity, and PTSD, as well as his inability to find the necessary specialised treatment in custody, constitute exceptional circumstances.

54 Ms Cokorilo gave evidence that the applicant suffers from Conversion Disorder, which manifests in psychogenic non‑epileptic seizures resulting from severe psychological distress. The applicant reports having suffered over 100 such episodes while in custody, and Ms Cokorilo opined that the custodial environment exposes him to increased risk of aggravation and exacerbation of seizure activity. Since the time of her report, the applicant has had several more seizures.

55 The applicant also has a long history of mental health issues. He suffers from anxiety, severe depression, and, as a result of his repeated assaults in custody, severe PTSD. Ms Cokorilo gave evidence that the custodial environment exacerbates the applicant's PTSD symptoms, which in turn increases his levels of distress and further exacerbates his Conversion Disorder. She also identified harmful impacts of the applicant's prolonged period of isolation in custody, including paranoia and increased risk of self‑harm. The applicant reported to Ms Cokorilo that, despite the deterioration in his mental health, he is not receiving any psychological interventions in custody.

56 Ms Cokorilo gave evidence that the applicant requires integrated dual diagnosis treatment - a specialised treatment approach that would address his substance use and psychopathology concurrently. Ms Cokorilo deemed it unlikely that the applicant would be able to receive this form of treatment in custody.

57 Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant's health continues to deteriorate as a direct result of incarceration, and that his conditions render his time in custody inherently onerous and acutely damaging. It is further submitted that, as the applicant cannot be placed in a facility within the custodial setting that can adequately manage his condition, the seven month delay until the commencement of trial creates a lengthy period during which he will not be able to access the treatment he needs.

58 Counsel for the applicant argues that the applicant must be able to access the requisite medical and therapeutic care in order to limit further deterioration of his condition. The delay, the unique features of his condition, and the inadequacy of treatment within the custodial system are said to constitute exceptional circumstances.

59 It is submitted that the applicant has robust and structured supports available in the community. He is supported by his mother and sister, who are prepared to provide daily care. It is proposed that he reside at his sister's home, and his mother is prepared to offer a $10,000 surety as a sign of her commitment to securing his compliance with any applicable bail conditions.

60 Further, the applicant is linked with the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and has letters of support confirming ongoing service engagement. He is also engaged with Phoenix Specialised Youth & Disability Services, where he receives individualised support through his case worker. Phoenix Services' NDIS Support Coordinator, Mr Subhani, gave evidence that the NDIS is in a position to provide the applicant with a broad range of support, including care in the home. Mr Subhani confirmed that, although the NDIS could not directly provide funding for a psychologist, the applicant does have funding for a behaviour support practitioner who could assist him with engaging a psychologist.

61 Ms Cokorilo observed that the applicant's offending is frequently precipitated by illicit drug use, and that continued abstinence would 'likely substantially mitigate his risk of recidivism'.[9] Counsel for the applicant provided a letter from East Side Recovery, confirming that he has been accepted into a 5‑week intensive rehabilitation program, which includes a specialised mental health nurse, dual‑diagnosis counselling, and monitoring for substance use.

62 Counsel for the applicant makes reference to the surrounding circumstances, as identified in section 3AAA of the Act, which must be considered by the Court.

63 With respect to the strength of the prosecution case, counsel for the applicant noted that neither an indictment (regarding the kidnapping and related charges), nor a summary of prosecution opening, have been filed. Nevertheless, counsel for the applicant submits that, although certain aspects of the alleged offending are confirmed by CCTV, there are credibility issues regarding the complainant, AT. Mr Saunders particularly noted her substantial prior convictions and initial difficulties in getting her to attend the committal. It is submitted that, although not necessarily weak, the prosecution case cannot be described as strong.

64 As to background, it is submitted on the applicant's behalf that he was raised in a highly unstable traumatic household. As identified above, the applicant never knew his father, was physically abused by his stepfather, and, in his adolescence, was profoundly affected by the sudden death of his sister. The applicant's history of illicit drug use and mental illness have also been identified.

65 In addition to the aforementioned effects of his traumatic brain injuries, the applicant experiences further cognitive difficulties. In his report, Dr Treeby identifies that the applicant has reported persistent problems with respect to attention, concentration, memory, and problem‑solving. The applicant also reported social and communication difficulties, which Dr Treeby notes is consistent with a previous speech pathology assessment. At the time of Dr Treeby's assessment, the applicant's intellectual functioning and verbal comprehension skills fell in the extremely low range, his perceptual reasoning abilities were below expectation, and his basic information processing speed was severely impaired. Dr Treeby concludes that the applicant continues to experience a range of cognitive impairments as a result of his brain injury.

66 Finally, it is submitted that the applicant has a special vulnerability due to his ill health, mental illness, and cognitive impairments. Notably, the respondent accepts that the applicant is a person with a special vulnerability.

67 As to risk, it is submitted that the applicant does not pose an unacceptable risk for several reasons, including his high level of family and community support, current physical impairments, and willingness to comply with any bail conditions the Court deems suitable.

68 In written submissions, counsel for applicant proposed an extensive list of possible bail conditions. Mr Saunders also accepted that the applicant could be restricted from leaving the home except to attend medical and therapeutic appointments.

69 As outlined above, Ms Cokorilo reports that the applicant's history of offending is linked with his drug use. She identified that he has been able to sustain periods of abstinence following periods of incarceration, including remaining drug‑free between April and December 2024. Ms Cokorilo gave evidence that continued drug abstinence would substantially mitigate his risk of recidivism. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has strong supports in place, having been accepted into East Side Recovery's 5‑week program and, per Ms Cokorilo's report, expressed a genuine desire to cease illicit drug use.

70 Counsel for the applicant further submits that any potential risk is strongly mitigated by the applicant's current physical condition. The applicant, who left the ICU on 5 November 2025, has enduring physical limitations on his mobility and requires daily attendant care. He has continued to have seizures and falls while in hospital. The applicant's current lack of mobility, as well as appropriate conditions, are said to be able to mitigate any risk to an acceptable level.

71 The respondent submits that the applicant has not established exceptional circumstances that justify the grant of bail. The respondent accepts that the applicant's physical and mental health has deteriorated but submits that he is receiving appropriate medical care in custody and that medical staff have been concerned and responsive as to where and how his medical needs can be met.

72 Mr Batten emphasised that although, in isolation, the matters relied upon by the applicant to establish exceptional circumstances 'may do so',[10] when the Court considers all of the surrounding circumstances of the case, they ought not.

73 The respondent, addressing surrounding circumstances, draws the Court's attention predominantly to the seriousness of the alleged offending and the applicant's criminal history.

74 Mr Batten first identifies that the applicant, if denied bail, would experience a potential total remand period in the order of 480 days. Mr Batten submits that, if he were convicted of aggravated burglary and kidnapping, the sentence imposed on the applicant would exceed the time spent on remand. The respondent further submits that aggravated burglary, carrying a 25‑year maximum term, represents a serious form of offending.

75 As to the strength of the prosecution case, Mr Batten accepted that 'it remains to be seen what the issue is'[11] in relation to the incident for which Detective Senior Constable Weekes is the informant, but submits that there is CCTV footage of the applicant in relation to the alleged offending. Addressing the credibility raised in relation to AT, the respondent notes that she did give evidence at the committal and that there is support for her evidence.

76 The respondent further submits that the applicant has demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with bail conditions and court orders. As noted by the respondent, the applicant previously failed to surrender into custody in accordance with his conditions of bail on 28 February 2025, and previously disregarded orders of the Court through his conviction for breach of a Community Corrections Order.

77 Moreover, the applicant's previous grant of bail in June 2024 provided supports including by Bail Safe and the Phoenix Centre, but the applicant promptly disengaged. Ms Cokorilo attributed this disengagement to the dissolution of the applicant's marriage, his inexperience with counselling, and his struggles with group settings. The respondent submits that the applicant's previous lack of engagement reduces the weight that might be ascribed by the Court to the availability of those support services.

78 Finally, the respondent directs the Court's attention to the fact that the applicant was on bail at the time of the alleged offending.

79 The respondent submits that the applicant poses an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety and welfare of other persons, failing to surrender into custody, and committing a Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 offence.

80 Noting that the high degree of probability test applies in assessing the applicant's risk of committing a Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 offence, the respondent submits that the Court cannot be satisfied that there is a high degree of probability that the applicant would not commit aggravated burglary if released on bail.

81 The respondent further notes that the applicant's history of offending in this similar manner spans a period of 11 years. He has demonstrated a consistent ability to acquire firearms and, during his most recent arrest, was found with a loaded gun under his mattress despite being subject to a Firearm Prohibition Order. Mr Batten also identified that the applicant was on a Community Corrections Order at the time of the alleged offending in paragraph 4 of the affidavit, and on bail at the time of the alleged offending in early 2025.

82 The respondent submits that the applicant has engaged in unprovoked violence in public and assaulted three members of the public who were unknown to him. Referring to the link between the applicant's drug use and offending identified by Ms Cokorilo, the respondent argues that the applicant represents a significant risk of relapsing into drug use and thus falling into 'a pattern of escalating offending'.[12] The respondent also draws the Court's attention to the fact that Ms Cokorilo assessed the respondent as posing a high risk of violent recidivism.

83 The respondent submits that the applicant's history of disengaging from treatment and support services, history of violence, risk of recidivism, and previous disregard of court orders, render the risk an unacceptable one. In the event that the Court determines otherwise, the respondent accepts the conditions of bail proposed by the applicant in written submissions, but proposes one additional condition to the effect that the applicant does not possess a mobile telephone without prior approval of the Informant.

84 As discussed above, for the applicant to succeed in this application he must establish the existence of exceptional circumstances justifying a grant of bail. In this regard the applicant relies on a combination of matters, as he is entitled to do. He submits that, overall, his health issues have made his situation incompatible with custodial life, and for which the applicant cannot receive adequate treatment in custody.

85 Primarily, the applicant relies on aspects of his compromised health, as discussed above. It is argued that his health circumstances include acquired brain injuries from a series of assaults that have taken place in the custodial environment. Further, it is argued that, because of his injuries, he has become particularly vulnerable in the prison setting. Accepting that it is the responsibility of Corrections Victoria to protect the applicant, and keep him safe, it appears that the most practical way of achieving this is to place the applicant into isolated circumstances. According to the expert evidence placed before the Court, this circumstance exacerbates his health situation and has highly detrimental impacts.

86 Whilst the applicant suffered from a number of injuries that were caused in 2016, 2017 and 2018, it also might be observed that these injuries did not physically prevent him from having committed further offences from 2019 until 2025. However, the applicant was further assaulted whilst in prison in October 2025. This assault appears to have had serious consequences and resulted in a significant period spent in hospital, as established by hospital records that were placed before the Court.

87 As to conditions in prison, Ms Cokorilo and Dr Treeby report that the applicant's physical and mental conditions mean that he is unable to adequately care for himself, and that he requires ongoing assistance with regular tasks. This only makes more difficult his experience in the prison setting, as well as adding to his vulnerability, which appears to have been adequately demonstrated, again independently established by hospital records, and supported by a letter provided to the Court by Corrections Victoria.[13]

88 Further, Ms Cokorilo's evidence is that the applicant suffers from Conversion Disorder, which apparently manifests itself in the suffering of psychogenic non‑epileptic seizures resulting from severe psychological distress. Ms Cokorilo has expressed the opinion that the custodial environment exposes the applicant to an increased risk of aggravation and exacerbation of seizure activity.

89 The evidence also is that the applicant has a long history of mental health issues, suffering from anxiety, severe depression, and severe PTSD, with the custodial environment exacerbating the applicant's PTSD symptoms, in turn increasing his levels of distress, further exacerbating the Conversion Disorder. Ms Cokorilo also identifies harmful impacts of the applicant's prolonged periods of isolation in custody, including paranoia and increased risk of self‑harm.

90 In addition, Dr Treeby assesses the applicant's intellectual functioning and verbal comprehension skills as falling into the extremely low range, with his perceptual reasoning abilities falling well below expectations. Dr Treeby concludes that the applicant continues to experience a range of cognitive impairments as a result of his brain injury.

91 The applicant has submitted that these health factors together are capable of satisfying the exceptional circumstances test.

92 By contrast, the respondent argues they do not rise that far, even considered in combination, and that factors such as the strength of the prosecution case, there being no expected undue delay in the resolution of the applicant's charges especially when seen in the context of the serious nature of the allegations, and an expected period of imprisonment likely to exceed the period of accumulated remand, together, cannot meet the high test imposed on the applicant.

93 Noting the position taken by the respondent to this application, I am nevertheless satisfied the applicant has satisfied the exceptional circumstances test. I am of the opinion that the applicant's particular personal health circumstances, and his apparent vulnerability to attack in prison, along with his isolated incarceration, together operate to satisfy the test. I note that the Court has relied heavily on the material and evidence provided from the applicant via Ms Cokorilo and Dr Treeby.

94 Against the factors that weigh in favour of this state of satisfaction, I have taken into account the seriousness of the allegations made against him, his prior criminal record, the strength of the prosecution case, and likely time he will serve in prison in the event that he is found guilty of the offences he is charged with.

95 The exceptional circumstances test having been satisfied, that is not the end of the matter as the Court is now required to have regard to whether the prosecution has satisfied the unacceptable risk test.

96 As above, the recent amendments to the Act require the Court to have regard to whether:

For the purposes of section 4E, a risk that the accused would, if released on bail, commit a Schedule 1 offence or a Schedule 2 offence is an unacceptable risk unless the bail decision maker is satisfied that there is a high degree of probability that the accused would not commit an indictable offence referred to in subsection (1)(a) if released on bail.[14]

97 Therefore, I must ask the question whether I am satisfied that there is a high degree of probability that the accused would not commit an indictable offence referred to in subsection (1)(a) if released on bail. In order to answer this question, I am of the opinion that I must consider, pursuant to section 4E(3)(a) and (b) of the Act, not only surrounding circumstances, but also whether there are conditions of bail that might be imposed to mitigate the risk so that it is not an unacceptable risk.

98 In assessing the question of risk, it is necessary to examine the risks that exist. In my opinion, given the applicant's very poor and relevant criminal history, and the timing of when the most recent allegations have occurred, there exist risks that if granted bail, he would commit Schedule 1 or 2 offences, and that he would endanger the safety of persons.

99 The applicant's history demonstrates that he is more than capable of using violence against persons, and that he uses weapons to carry out that violence and intimidation; that he becomes drug affected; that he operates in the world of drug‑trafficking; that he is prepared to carry out home invasions, in the present instance, in company with others; and that he drives motor vehicles dangerously, sometimes directly placing persons at risk. In a number of regards the applicant is a repeat offender, and a risk to the broader community. His extensive criminal record has continued almost unabated, apart from times when he has been serving terms of imprisonment.

100 That said, as is well understood, the question to address is not whether risk can be eliminated, but rather whether risk can be mitigated to the point where the risk that is otherwise unacceptable may be reduced to the point where it becomes an acceptable one.

101 I also take into account that the applicant is yet to face a committal hearing in December 2025 and is yet to face plea and sentence in the Magistrates' Court for a series of offences that have been the subject of negotiated resolution. Thus, there are a serious of matters that amount to 'surrounding circumstances' that must be taken into account in the relevant assessments to be made.

102 In making the decision as to whether the respondent has satisfied me that there is an unacceptable risk attaching to the applicant, it is also relevant to consider the impact of the applicant's current state of health in determining whether he is likely to have the capacity to carry out relevant offending behaviour in the period between now and when his cases are to be resolved. I note that, as recently as March 2025, the applicant demonstrated the capacity to carry out very serious misconduct, but of course, and as discussed above, some medical events and a further serious assault in prison have occurred with respect to his ongoing health since that time. I have taken those matters into account.

103 I also take into account the number of supports existing in the community that are available to the applicant, as discussed above, which includes his involvement in a drug rehabilitation program. The evidence of the expert witnesses is that the applicant's drug issues are connected to his previous offending, and thus elimination of the applicant's use of illicit drugs should be a contributing factor to the reduction of risk.

104 I have taken all these factors into account. In my opinion, a satisfactory means of reducing the risk of future offending behaviour of the type that the applicant has been disposed to carry out is to impose a regime of very strict conditions, including to effectively 'lock the applicant down' within in the community. By that I propose that the applicant can be restricted to remain exclusively at his sister's home for 24 hours each day, with the only exceptions being to leave the premises on occasions when he is required to do so for medical reasons, and then only in the company of a nominated and acceptable relative, relatives, or NDIS carers, being a person or persons known to the Court. In this way he will be sufficiently prevented from being in public without supervision, and then only for limited purposes.

105 Accordingly, I propose to grant bail on the basis that Ms Zenah Altaee provides a surety in the amount of $10,000, and that strong conditions are attached, including that the applicant:

(a) resides with his sister, MA, at her home in Altona Meadows, Victoria 3028 ('the premises');

(b) remains at the premises at all times, except to attend medical, psychiatric, and rehabilitative care and appointments (including with East Side Recovery) in the company of a nominated and acceptable relative, relatives, or NDIS carer or representative;

(c) presents himself at the front door of the premises if and when called upon by a member of Victoria Police to do so;

(d) reports each Monday, Wednesday, and Friday to Werribee Police Station, in the company of a nominated relative or NDIS carer, between the hours of 9:00am and 5:00pm;

(e) does not contact any witnesses for the prosecution, directly or indirectly, including the complainants, or members of the complainants' families, with the exception of the Informant;

(f) does not contact or associate with, either directly or indirectly, any co‑accused;

(g) does not leave the State of Victoria;

(h) surrenders his passport and does not apply for another or any valid travel document, or cause any other person to do so on his behalf;

(i) does not attend any points of international departure;

(j) abstains from the consumption of any alcohol or any drug of dependence, except as permitted by the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1998 (Vic);

(k) does not possess a mobile telephone without the prior approval of the Informant, and provides the Informant within 24 hours the mobile device's phone number, international mobile equipment identity, international mobile subscriber identity, and personal identification number, and provides it to the Informant for inspection upon request;

(l) does not possess or use any encrypted communications device or program including any encrypted mobile phone; and

(m) reappears before this Court for judicial monitoring to review compliance with the bail orders at 10:00am on Friday 21 November 2025, and on any further dates that the Court appoints during the course of this order.

106 I am, accordingly, satisfied that if the conditions proposed are put in place and adhered to, there is a high degree of probability that the accused would not commit an indictable offence referred to in subsection (1)(a) if released on bail. It follows if they are not adhered to, I am unlikely to remain so satisfied.

[1] Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ('the Act'), section 1B(2).

[2] [2021] VSC 538, [27].

[5] Affidavit in Response to an Application for Bail (27 October 2025), 3.

[6] Transcript of Proceedings, Re Altaee (Supreme Court of Victoria, S ECR 2025 0267, 5 November 2025), 50.

[8] Royal Melbourne Hospital, Discharge Summary (5 November 2025), 11.

[9] Report of Ms Sandra Cokorilo (18 July 2025), [88].

[10] Transcript of Proceedings, Re Altaee (Supreme Court of Victoria, S ECR 2025 0267, 5 November 2025), 80.

[12] Report of Ms Sandra Cokorilo, (18 July 2025),

[13] Letter from Assistant Commissioner Jenny Hosking of Corrections Victoria (29 October 2025), [5].