Re Budimir [2026] VSC 186 (2 April 2026)

1. The applicant, Indiana Budimir, is 23 years of age and has resided on her own in Dandenong North. The applicant was charged and bailed in the Magistrates' Court in 2025 with respect to the matters where the informant is Hatzimanolis and Jean. In March of this year the applicant was charged for the matters where the informant is Iriyadi, bail was refused and outstanding bails revoked. The applicant now applies to this Court for bail. The matters involving all three informants are listed for mention on 28 April 2026.

1. The applicant has been charged with numerous drug related offences including trafficking and possessing a drug of dependence,[1] weapons offences[2] and committing an indictable offence whilst on bail.[3]

1. On two occasions in September 2025, the applicant was searched pursuant to s 82 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic) and found to be in possession of a smorgasbord of illicit substances and on each occasion a weapon, one of which was an imitation firearm. On both occasions the applicant was interviewed, charged and bailed to appear at the Dandenong Magistrates' Court on 6 January 2026.
2. In March of this year, members from the Springvale Divisional Response Unit executed search warrants on premises in Dandenong North pursuant to s 81 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic). The applicant was present at the address at the time of the warrant being executed. During the search another raft of illicit substances were located within the applicant's premises, as well as some suspected stolen items of value and a number of weapons which included knives, a gel blaster and a machete.
3. The applicant was arrested and remanded into custody and subsequently refused bail the following day for failing to show exceptional circumstances.

1. Section 4 of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ('the Act') makes plain that the applicant is entitled to bail unless the court is required by the Act to refuse it.
2. In determining an application for bail in relation to a Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 offence, a two step test applies. Step 1 is the exceptional circumstances or compelling reason test. Step 2 is the unacceptable risk test.
3. The applicant is charged with a Schedule 2 offence namely trafficking a drug of dependence. By virtue of s 4AA(2)(c)(i), the applicant is subject to an exceptional circumstance test, as the applicant has been charged with a Schedule 2 offence whilst the applicant was on bail for the same Schedule 2 offence. This court is required to 'refuse bail unless satisfied that an exceptional circumstance exists that justifies the grant of bail'. The applicant bears the burden of satisfying the court as to the existence of an exceptional circumstance.[4]
4. Exceptional circumstances must take a case 'out of the norm'. This is a high hurdle, but not an impossible standard. What is ultimately significant is whether the circumstances, viewed as a whole, are exceptional to the extent that bail is justified, even considering the very serious nature of the charge.[5]
5. The court must refuse bail if satisfied the applicant poses an unacceptable risk notwithstanding the exceptional circumstances test has been met. An unacceptable risk is not merely any risk of the matters referred to in s 4E of the Act. The question is whether such a risk is unacceptable.[6] The respondent bears the onus of satisfying the court as to the applicant posing an unacceptable risk.[7]
6. In considering whether an exceptional circumstance exists and whether an applicant poses an unacceptable risk, the court is required to take into account the surrounding circumstances.[8] Section 3AAA(1) of the Act sets out surrounding circumstances, so that (so far as relevant) the court

must take into account all the circumstances that are relevant to the matter including, but not limited to, the following -

(a) the nature and seriousness of the alleged offending, including whether it is a serious example of the offence;

(b) the strength of the prosecution case;

(c) the accused's criminal history;

(d) the extent to which the accused has complied with the conditions of any earlier grant of bail;

(e) whether, at the time of the alleged offending, the accused -

(i) was on bail for another offence; or

(ii) was subject to a summons to answer to a charge for another offence; or

(iii) was at large awaiting trial for another offence; or

(iv) was released under a parole order; or

(v) was subject to a community correction order made in respect of, or was otherwise serving a sentence for, another offence;

(f) whether there is in force -

(i) a family violence intervention order made against the accused; or

(ii) a family violence safety notice issued against the accused; or

(iii) a recognised DVO made against the accused;

(g) the accused's personal circumstances, associations, home environment and background;

(h) any special vulnerability of the accused, being a child or an Aboriginal person, being in ill health or having a cognitive impairment, an intellectual disability or a mental illness;

(i) the availability of treatment or bail support services;

(j) any known view or likely view of an alleged victim of the offending on the grant of bail, the amount of bail or the conditions of bail;

(k) the length of time the accused is likely to spend in custody if bail is refused;

(l) the likely sentence to be imposed should the accused be found guilty of the offence with which the accused is charged;

...

1. Section 1B of the Act recognises the overarching importance of maximising, to the greatest extent possible, the safety of the community and persons affected by crime.

E Evidence and submissions advanced in support of bail

1. The applicant relied upon the affidavit of Richard Jakobson affirmed 26 March 2026 and accompanying exhibits. The applicant submitted the following matters established exceptional circumstances that justify the grant of bail:

1. The applicant submitted that it is the applicant's first time in custody and that by dint of her lack of criminal history that her time spent on remand may outweigh any term of imprisonment she may fall to be sentenced.
2. The evidentiary certificates regarding the drug analysis were outstanding. Attempts to resolve the matter may therefore be delayed.

1. The application is supported by her family and has been assessed as suitable for engagement with the Court Integrated Services Program ('CISP').
2. The applicant's mother and stepfather would have an awareness off the applicant's needs and support to return to live at the family home. A $5,000 surety was available.

1. Finally it was submitted that any risk the applicant posed was not an unacceptable risk and any risk that may exist could be ameliorated by the imposition of conditions.

1. The respondent relied upon the affidavit James Kibel affirmed 1 April 2026 and attached exhibits.
2. The respondent argued the applicant had not discharged the burden of demonstrating the existence of exceptional circumstances that justify the grant of bail.
3. The respondent argued the applicant is an unacceptable risk of committing a Schedule 2 offence and otherwise endangering the safety or welfare of any other person and that risk is an unacceptable risk. Relying on the informant's report, the respondent submitted that bail conditions will not be sufficient to ameliorate the risk to an acceptable level.
4. It was submitted that this is supported by the applicant's most recent allegation of trafficking a drug of dependence occurring whilst on bail for trafficking a drug of dependence.
5. The delay in this matter is not significant as the matter is listed at the end of this month. The prosecution case is strong and the matter is capable of resolution.
6. The availability of the CISP was about potential support as opposed to actual support given a number of services were yet to be engaged.
7. The allegations are serious, with the charges where Hatzimanolis is the informant being on the cusp of involving a commercial quantity of the drug. The respondent submitted a term of imprisonment is an available sentencing option for this offending.

1. As mentioned, the exceptional circumstances test is a high hurdle. The applicant's suitability for the CISP, whilst positive, in and of itself falls far short of meeting this threshold. Whilst it is not uncommon for the CISP to have an intention to engage services for an individual upon release, in the circumstances of this case, the applicant requires intensive considered support in the community. The applicant has only has been abstinent for 10 days whilst remanded in custody. This is to be considered in the context of her being drug dependent since the age of 19 years.
2. The offences are serious and the prosecution case is strong. On three separate occasions the applicant is found in possession of a variety of drugs, some in traffickable quantities together with accoutrements of trafficking drugs.
3. I accept the applicant has no prior criminal history and it is arguable the sentence imposed may not involve a lengthy period of imprisonment. There is however no impediment to the matter finalising in the near future. I do not accept delay is a significant factor in this application.
4. The applicant has demonstrated a complete disregard for the imposition of bail conditions in the past, evidenced by the offending for which she is presently on remand.
5. I take into account the applicant's supportive family and their offer of a surety despite the established risk the applicant poses of contravening bail.
6. The applicant intends to maintain her Dandenong South property even whilst living with her family and intends to limit her contact with old associates. In the absence of a therapeutic structure and complete severance from her former associates, the applicant is an unacceptable risk of committing a Schedule 2 offence and otherwise endangering the safety or welfare of any person.
7. These factors in combination, however, have not established exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of bail. The risk of reoffending that the applicant poses is unacceptable and cannot be ameliorated by the imposition of conditions.

[1] Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic) s 71AC.

[2] Control of Weapons Act 1990 (Vic) ss 5AA, 5AB(1), 6(1).

[3] Bail Act 1977 (Vic) s 30B ('the Act').

[4] See s 4C(2) of the Act.

[5] Re CT [2018] VSC 559, [64]-[65] (Champion J).

[6] Hall v Pangemanan [2018] VSC 533, [25] (Croucher J).

[7] See s 4E(2) of the Act.

[8] See s 4A(3) of the Act.