Re Dettman [2025] VSC 750 (2 December 2025)

1. On 13 February 2025, the applicant, Daniel Dettman ("Dettman"), was arrested in the car park of a hotel in Tullamarine and charged with 10 offences. One of those charges was subsequently withdrawn at a committal hearing at the Magistrates' Court of Victoria at Melbourne on 23 June 2025.
2. The following offences are alleged to have occurred on 4 February 2025:

(1) 2 counts of using a firearm to discharge a shot at a vehicle with reckless disregard for the safety of any person, contrary to section 131A(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (Vic).

(2) 1 count of reckless conduct endangering life by discharging a firearm towards a moving vehicle, contrary to section 22 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

(3) 1 count of reckless conduct placing another person in danger of serious injury by discharging a firearm towards a moving vehicle, contrary to section 23 of the Crimes Act.

(4) 1 count of possessing a firearm as a prohibited person, contrary to section 5(1) of the Firearms Act.

(5) 1 count of receiving stolen goods, contrary to section 88 of the Crimes Act.

1. There is a co-accused in respect of the 4 February Charges, who has also been arrested and charged. The co-accused did not make any application for bail and is currently on remand.
2. Dettman was also charged with the following offences:

(1) 2 counts of possessing a drug of dependence, contrary to section 73 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic), alleged to have occurred on 13 February 2025.

(2) 1 count of trafficking a drug of dependence, contrary to section 71AC of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act, alleged to have occurred between September 2024 and 13 February 2025.

1. Dettman has previously applied for bail in the matter as follows:

(1) On 2 April 2025, Dettman applied for bail in the Magistrates' Court at Melbourne. On the same day, bail was refused on the ground that Dettman had failed to demonstrate that exceptional circumstances existed to justify the grant of bail.[1]

(2) On 23 June 2025, Dettman applied again for bail in the Magistrates' Court at Melbourne. On that day, bail was refused on the grounds that Dettman had failed to demonstrate a compelling reason to justify the grant of bail, and that there was an unacceptable risk of Dettman endangering the safety or welfare of any person if granted bail.

(3) On 18 August 2025, Dettman applied for bail in the County Court of Victoria. On that day, bail was refused on the ground that Dettman had failed to demonstrate a compelling reason to justify the grant of bail.

1. On 13 November 2025, Dettman filed a notice of intention to make an application for bail in this court. Since being remanded on 13 February 2025, Dettman has spent 292 days in custody (not including today).
2. A case assessment hearing was conducted in the County Court of Victoria on 24 September 2025. The matter is next listed for directions on 10 December 2025 and is listed for trial in the County Court of Victoria at Melbourne on 29 April 2026 on a 5 day estimate.
3. Dettman accepts that he must show a compelling reason exists to justify the grant of bail, and relies upon a number of matters in support of his application. These include: the length of time he is expected to remain in custody before trial should bail be refused, and the likelihood that this time spent on remand would exceed any term of imprisonment in the event he is found guilty of the offences charged; genuine triable issues that call into question the strength of the prosecution case; his personal circumstances, including the availability of support from his mother; the availability of treatment and bail support services; and the efforts he has made to address his drug addiction whilst on remand.
4. The prosecution opposes bail on the basis that the compelling reason test applies and that, even if a compelling reason exists to grant bail, Dettman is an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of any person, of committing further offences whilst on bail (including indictable offences) and of failing to surrender into custody in accordance with the conditions of any grant of bail.
5. For the reasons that follow, Dettman's application for bail is refused.

1. The following account is based on the prosecution case and comprises allegations only.

1. On 4 February 2025 at approximately 1.23pm, it is alleged that Dettman was in the front passenger seat of a blue Holden Statesman ("the Statesman"). The Statesman was driven by Dettman's co-accused. It is alleged that the Statesman pulled alongside a white BMW M2 ("the BMW") parked on the side of Tendulkar Drive in Rockbank, Victoria. A 19 year old man ("the Complainant") was reclined in the driver's seat of the BMW at the time, making phone calls related to his employment.
2. It is alleged that Dettman and his co-accused both exited the Statesman, that Dettman approached the driver's door of the BMW and yelled "Open the fucking door, now". Dettman's co-accused tapped on the driver's door window in an aggressive manner with a sawn-off shotgun ("the Firearm"). It is further alleged that Dettman's co-accused pulled the trigger of the Firearm whilst pointing it directly at the stationary BMW's driver's seat window, however the Firearm failed to fire.
3. The Complainant started the BMW and drove off at speed. As the Complainant drove away, Dettman's co-accused is alleged to have attempted to fire the Firearm a second time at the BMW, however the firearm failed to fire again. On a third attempt, however, it is alleged that Dettman's co-accused succeeded in firing the Firearm down the street towards the BMW as it was driving away.
4. Dettman then returned to the passenger seat of the Statesman, and Dettman's co-accused returned to the driver's seat. This incident was recorded on a nearby closed circuit television camera. Both a visual and an audio recording clearly depict what occurred. For the purposes of this application, there was no contest that Dettman was one of the alleged offenders.
5. It is alleged that Dettman and the co-accused then followed the BMW. The Complainant states that he called triple zero during the pursuit, but ended the phone call because "they were taking too long". The Complainant then called his employer, who called triple zero on a separate phone while remaining on the phone to the Complainant.
6. The Complainant turned north onto Leakes Road, but as he approached the level crossing on that road, the boom gates were down. The Complainant was forced to stop the BMW in heavy traffic on his approach to the level crossing.
7. It is alleged that the Statesman pulled up alongside the BMW where it had stopped and that Dettman shot the Firearm from the passenger window of the Statesman in the direction of the Complainant, but missed both Complainant and the BMW. This was allegedly witnessed by an off-duty police officer ("the Police Witness"), who called triple zero.
8. The Complainant then performed a U-turn and travelled south along Leakes Road. It is alleged that Dettman and his co-accused continued to chase the BMW, before the Statesman nearly lost control at a roundabout not far from Leakes Road.
9. At approximately 1.30pm, it is alleged that Dettman's co-accused parked the Statesman behind a childcare centre nearby on Restful Way, Rockbank, and that both Dettman and the co-accused exited and walked away. It is also alleged that closed-circuit television footage captures Dettman in possession of a firearm whilst walking along a footpath past the childcare centre shortly after. This incident was also recorded on a closed circuit television camera located at the front of the childcare centre. The footage records Dettman and his co-accused walking past the front of the centre, with a sawn-off shotgun in sight in broad daylight, and almost immediately after a man leaving the centre with a small child in his arms. It is further alleged that, a short time later, Dettman and his co-accused returned to the Statesman in a different vehicle, being a silver Holden Commodore driven by Ms Natalie Cipolla ("Cipolla"), with whom both Dettman and his co-accused are either said to be, or to have been, romantically involved. After a short time, both Dettman and his co-accused left in the Statesman.
10. At approximately 3.30pm, a member of the public reported to police that a blue motor vehicle with no registration plates appeared to have been abandoned on Greenpoint Drive in Rockbank. Police attended the location of the vehicle that afternoon. It is alleged that this vehicle was the Statesman that had been used by Dettman and his co-accused to chase the Complainant earlier that afternoon.
11. It is also alleged that a South Australian registration plate was found inside the abandoned vehicle. This was different to the Victorian registration plates registered to that vehicle. The South Australian registration plate was allegedly stolen goods that Dettman was knowingly in receipt of.
12. Dettman has been charged on the basis of statutory complicity for the alleged discharge of the Firearm on Tendulkar Drive alleged to have been committed by his co-accused. He has also been charged as being directly responsible for the alleged discharge of the Firearm on Leakes Road.
13. Without being exhaustive, the prosecution's case against Dettman and his co-offender is currently formulated as relying upon: distinctive identifiers of the Statesman (including a broken driver's side door handle and chrome wheels); closed-circuit television footage (including some footage with audio recording) alleged to capture aspects of the offending itself, as well as Dettman and his co-accused's movements both before and shortly after the offending; items located at the residential addresses of Dettman and his co-accused; admissions made by Dettman and his co-accused to police following their arrests; text message communications between Dettman, his co-accused and Cipolla; telecommunications location data; and the evidence of the Police Witness.
14. The prosecution are also awaiting results from gunshot residue and DNA[2] testing. The results concerning the gunshot residue are expected to be received this year. There was no suggestion that the present trial date might be vacated.

1. On 13 February 2025 at approximately 12.25pm, Dettman and Cipolla were arrested in the car park of a hotel in Tullamarine.
2. It is alleged that, at the time of his arrest, Dettman was in possession of 8 press sealable plastic bags containing a total of approximately 20.14 grams of methylamphetamine inside a Bluetooth speaker, a 1.25 litre water bottle filled with a small amount of 1,4 Butanediol and a small brown bottle containing 1,4 Butanediol.
3. It is also alleged that the mobile phone that Dettman was in possession of at the time of his arrest contained numerous text message chains discussing the trafficking of drugs of dependence.

1. Dettman is not currently on bail or summons for any other offence, however he has a criminal history, comprising the following:

(1) On 30 January 2024, Dettman was convicted in the Magistrates' Court at Sunshine of contravening a community correction order. He was fined $500.

(2) On 19 May 2021, Dettman was convicted in the Magistrates' Court at Broadmeadows of:

(a) Failing to answer bail, intentionally destroying property, entering a private place without lawful authority or excuse, committing an indictable offence whilst on bail and contravening a conduct condition of bail. He was sentenced to a 12 month community correction order comprising 200 hours of community service, and ordered to undergo assessment and treatment for drug and alcohol abuse and for his mental health.

(b) Using a carriage service to harass. He was fined $750.

(3) On 14 May 2021, Dettman was convicted in the Magistrates' Court at Broadmeadows of failing an oral fluid test within 3 hours of driving, unlicensed driving, exceeding an 80 kilometre per hour speed limit by between 10 and 25 kilometres per hour and driving whilst his driver licence was suspended. He was fined an aggregate of $1,000, his driver licence was cancelled and he was disqualified from driving for 12 months.

(4) On 14 April 2010, Dettman was convicted in the Magistrates' Court at Sunshine of possessing a prohibited weapon without exemption or approval. He was fined $2,000 with $42.10 in statutory costs, and a forfeiture order was made with all property seized to be destroyed.

(5) On 13 March 2008, Dettman was convicted in the Magistrates' Court at Sunshine of:

(a) Failing to report to police where the owner was not present, and failing to stop his vehicle, after an accident. He was ordered to attend and participate in an approved defensive driving course.

(b) Careless driving. He was ordered to attend and participate in an approved defensive driving course and to pay $10,993.90 in compensation.

(6) On 9 August 2007, Dettman was convicted in the Magistrates' Court at Sunshine of using an unregistered motor vehicle on the highway, fraudulently using a registration label or plate and failing to answer bail. He was fined an aggregate of $150 with $61.30 in statutory costs.

1. Dettman is a 40 year old man[3] born in Footscray, Victoria who was living in Deanside, Victoria at the time of the alleged offending.
2. Dettman's upbringing in the Werribee area was characterised by difficulties. He was often the witness of family violence, with his father reported to be the perpetrator and his mother the affected family member. Dettman reports regularly intervening to protect his mother from his father from the age of 5. Dettman's mother left his father when Dettman was 10, and he did not see his father again until he was 15, from which point they maintained regular contact. The relationship was unstable, however, with Dettman and his father regularly using cannabis and alcohol together. Dettman resided with his father for around 6 months before his father relocated, prompting Dettman to return to live with his mother.
3. Dettman left school after completing year 10, before obtaining a Certificate II qualification in building and construction. He worked in his mother's cleaning business until he commenced work in the civil construction industry. At the time of the alleged offending, Dettman had been fired from his construction job due to a regular pattern of being late for work. Dettman reports that employment is available with his mother's cleaning business if granted bail.
4. Dettman's father passed away when he was 21. Though Dettman began smoking cannabis at the age of 16 or 17, and using methylamphetamine at the age of 19, Dettman attributes a surge in his substance use to his reliance on it as a coping mechanism following the grief, loss and trauma he experienced, and continues to experience, as a result of his father's passing. Substance use is one of the factors that Dettman describes as leading to the charges the subject of this application. He reports a further increase in both the quantity and the scope of his substance use at around the age of 35, which he attributes to the influence of his then-partner and her friends, and reports his own consumption at the time of the alleged offending as follows: up to 1.5 grams per day of methylamphetamine; up to 2 grams per day of medicinal cannabis; up to 10 millilitres per day of gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, also described as GHB; up to 1 gram per week of cocaine; and up to 2 pills fortnightly of ecstasy.
5. The other factor that Dettman associates with his alleged offending is a breakdown in his relationship with his partner of 3 years, Cipolla, whom he reports was also a heavy drug user. Dettman reports that the combination of substance use and difficulties in the relationship resulted in symptoms of depression, which have reportedly been alleviated somewhat since being in custody. He is currently prescribed buprenorphine to assist with his withdrawal symptoms.
6. Dettman was living at home with his mother at the time of the alleged offending, and it is proposed that he would return to live there if granted bail. Dettman reports denying his substance use to his mother prior to the alleged offending, and refusing her offers to find extra supports for him. Dettman and his mother have maintained regular contact since his arrest. Dettman reports having genuine conversations with her since entering custody, including about his past drug use, and their relationship has become stronger and more trusting as a result of this transparency. This development may be reflective of a broader change in Dettman becoming more receptive to being provided with, and accepting, external assistance with his substance abuse issues. His mother gave evidence that since Dettman has been in custody and has stopped taking drugs he is a totally different person; and more like the son she used to know.
7. Dettman has 3 adolescent daughters. His relationship with their mother lasted for approximately 15 years, ending approximately 5 years ago. Dettman reports that he maintains a positive relationship with her and that they have been in weekly contact since his arrest. Dettman's daughters live nearby his mother, and attend his mother's house regularly for sleepovers and dinners. He is said to view his role as their father as extremely important and would like to maintain the routine of his daughters visiting his mother's house if he is released on bail to live there.
8. Dettman's mother gave evidence about the seriously negative impact his incarceration is having upon his 3 daughters, the details of which are not necessary to go into.
9. Dettman has a 28 year old brother, who works full time in civil construction and who is also living at their mother's home. Dettman's other immediate family supports include his younger sister (who attended this hearing) and his stepfather.
10. Dettman has an interest in football, soccer and hiking. If released on bail, he hopes to engage in activities in the community that would allow him to seek out social connections removed from the gravitational pull of substance-using acquaintances, who appear to have formed the mainstay of his contacts in recent years. Dettman emphasises that employment would be his priority before engaging in social activities. His time on remand has provided the opportunity to work as part of the milk run in the kitchen of the correctional facility where he is being held, and while in custody he has completed a number of vocational courses.

1. Dettman initially provided the court with a Court Integrated Services Program report dated 13 August 2025, prepared by an advanced case manager at the Court Integrated Services Program.[4] This report was based on an assessment with Dettman conducted by audio-visual link on 4 August 2025 and recommended Dettman as suitable for case management at the County Court of Victoria. The report noted that Dettman presented with issues related to illicit and other substances and mental health, and it assessed Dettman's risk of reoffending as medium, using the Level of Service Risk, Need Responsivity risk assessment tool.
2. The prosecution subsequently provided the court with the following Court Integrated Services Program reports:[5]

(1) A report dated 1 April 2025, prepared by a case manager at the Court Integrated Services Program. This report was based on an assessment with Dettman conducted by audio-visual link on 1 April 2025 and recommended a level 1 community referral for Dettman, but expressed the view that ongoing case management by the Court Integrated Services Program team was not required.

(2) A report dated 20 June 2025, prepared by an acting team leader at the Court Integrated Services Program. This report was based on an assessment with Dettman conducted by audio-visual link on 18 June 2025 and recommended Dettman as suitable for intensive case management for up to 12 months.

1. For the purposes of the application for bail in this court, the court was assisted by a Court Integrated Services Program report dated 26 November 2025, prepared by an advanced case manager at the Court Integrated Services Program. This report was prepared as an addendum to the report dated 13 August 2025. Both the report and the addendum were authored by the same advanced case manager, the latter based on a re-assessment of Dettman conducted by audiovisual link on 17 November 2025.
2. The Court Integrated Services Program confirmed its prior recommendation of Dettman as suitable for case management at the County Court of Victoria.
3. The report also stated that the following initial treatment and support plan had been arranged for Dettman should he be granted bail, namely that Dettman would:

(1) Continue to reside at his nominated bail address, being his mother's residence, provided this is deemed a suitable address to the court.

(2) Attend his initial Court Integrated Services Program appointment in person at the County Court of Victoria at Melbourne with the author of the report on Tuesday, 9 December 2025.

(3) Attend an initial alcohol and other drugs appointment with a senior counsellor later on the same day, which would become a weekly appointment thereafter.

1. Finally, the report noted that Dettman continued to express motivation to engage in specialist alcohol and other drug counselling, that he would be supported to obtain a mental health care plan to address his anxiety and other mental health issues and that, if granted bail and added to the Court Integrated Services Program, he would be referred to a neuropsychology assessment.

1. In determining an application interpreting and applying the Bail Act, the court is required to take into account the guiding principles set out in section 1B.
2. Section 1B(1AA), which was inserted into the Bail Act in March of this year,[6] recognises the overarching importance of maximising, to the greatest extent possible, the safety of the community and persons affected by crime. This reflects the importance that the Parliament has conferred on this component of community safety.[7]
3. That said, community safety is not the only guiding principle. The Bail Act is to be applied and interpreted with regard to the other guiding principles in section 1B,[8] being the presumption of innocence and right to liberty, the promotion of fairness, transparency and consistency in bail decision making and public understanding of bail practices and procedures. These principles remain important.[9]
4. Section 4 of the Bail Act establishes that a person accused of an offence and held in custody in relation to it is entitled to be granted bail unless the Bail Act requires the bail decision-maker to refuse bail.

1. Section 4C(1A) of the Bail Act requires the court to refuse bail unless satisfied the applicant has demonstrated a compelling reason to justify the grant of bail. In considering whether such a reason exists, the court must take into account the surrounding circumstances[10] as part of a synthesis or balancing of all relevant matters.[11] The product of that exercise must compel the conclusion that detention is not justified; which does not require a reason which is irresistible or exceptional.[12] A compelling reason is a reason that is forceful and convincing, and thus difficult to resist.[13]

1. If the compelling reason test applies, which it is accepted by the parties that it does, and Dettman demonstrates that there is compelling reason justifying the grant of bail, the court must determine whether Dettman presents an unacceptable risk of the kind referred to in section 4E(1) of the Bail Act.[14]
2. In assessing that risk, the court must take into account the surrounding circumstances,[15] and consider whether the risk posed may be mitigated by any conditions of bail.[16] The court must also consider the likelihood of the risk occurring,[17] and the magnitude of the consequences if the risk were to give rise to the relevant conduct.[18]
3. The court must refuse bail if satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk.[19] The notion of unacceptable risk does not concern merely any risk of offending. Rather, the question is whether such a risk is unacceptable.[20] The burden of proving that an applicant poses an unacceptable risk rests with the prosecution.[21]

1. In considering whether a compelling reason exists and whether the applicant poses an unacceptable risk, the court must take into account all of the surrounding circumstances that are relevant to the matter.[22] Such surrounding circumstances include, but are not limited to, the matters listed in section 3AAA(1) of the Bail Act, which relevantly include:

(aa) whether, if the accused were found guilty of the offence with which the accused is charged, it is likely -

(i) that the accused would be sentenced to a term of imprisonment; and

(ii) if so, that the time the accused would spend remanded in custody if bail is refused would exceed that term of imprisonment;

(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 -

(i) the conditions of any earlier grant of bail; or

(ii) any earlier bail undertaking;

(g) the accused's personal circumstances, including -

(i) the caring responsibilities that the accused has (if any); and

(ii) the accused's associations, home environment and background;

(h) any special vulnerability of the accused, including -

(iv) having a disability, including physical disability, intellectual disability and cognitive impairment;

(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. If the court is considering the release of an accused on bail, it must impose any condition that, in the opinion of the court, will reduce the likelihood of risk that the accused may commit an offence listed in Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 of the Bail Act, endanger the safety or welfare of any other person, interfere with a witness or fail to surrender into custody.[23] However, those conditions must be no more onerous than is required and must be reasonable, having regard to the nature of the alleged offence and the circumstances of the accused.[24]

1. In support of the grant of bail, the surrounding circumstances were addressed in submitting that a compelling reason exists and that Dettman does not present an unacceptable risk. Further, it was submitted that any risks can be mitigated with appropriate bail conditions. Dettman relied on several factors, namely:

(1) The length of time Dettman is likely to spend in custody if bail is refused, which, it was submitted, would total 440 days by the time of his trial commencing on 29 April 2026. It was conceded on Dettman's behalf that, if Dettman is found guilty of all the offences charged, then he would be sentenced to a significant term of imprisonment. However, it was also submitted that, in light of issues with the prosecution's case,[25] there are realistic prospects that the time Dettman will spend on remand if bail is not granted would exceed that term of imprisonment. This submission was supported by referring to the availability of a community correction order as a possible component of a sentence[26] which, if Dettman were not convicted of the charges arising from the alleged discharges of the Firearm and the drug trafficking charge, was submitted to have the effect that Dettman would be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of less than 440 days if he were convicted of any or all of the remaining charges.

(2) The seriousness of the alleged offending. It was conceded the offences are serious.

(3) The strength of the prosecution's case. It was accepted the case against Dettman was not a weak case. Nonetheless, Dettman submitted that there are genuine triable issues with the prosecution's case that militate against a finding that the prosecution's case is strong, in particular whether Dettman was complicit with the alleged discharge of the Firearm by Dettman's co-accused on Tendulkar Drive, whether any shot was fired on Leakes Road (either by Dettman or by his co-accused) and whether there is sufficient evidence to establish to the requisite standard that Dettman trafficked a drug of dependence. By way of expansion:

(a) In relation to Dettman's alleged complicity in the discharge of the Firearm on Tendulkar Drive by his co-accused, it was submitted that, despite the co-accused making full and frank admissions that the co-accused discharged the Firearm, there is no evidence of: any agreement between Dettman and his co-accused that the co-accused would discharge the Firearm at the Complainant's car; Dettman having been aware that his co-accused was in possession of a loaded firearm, or of the existence of the Firearm more broadly, before it was allegedly produced and discharged by the co-accused; or Dettman having assisted, encouraged or directed the co-accused in discharging the Firearm.

(b) In relation to Dettman's alleged discharge of the Firearm on Leakes Road, it was submitted that: the Complainant has not made any statement that there was a gunshot on Leakes Road (and gave evidence at committal that no shot was fired on Leakes Road, which is consistent with his statement, and with a triple zero call made by the Complainant immediately after the incident); there is no evidence of any phone call to triple zero having been made reporting a gunshot on Leakes Road (other than the call made by the Police Witness); there is no evidence currently available of markings on the BMW or of gunshot residue supporting the discharge of a firearm on Leakes Road; and the Police Witness' observation of the alleged discharge is limited to what he reports he heard - he did not see any visual indicia of a gunshot. Further, Dettman also referred to the Police Witness being approximately 50 metres from the BMW, with his car windows up and talking on the phone to his partner at the time of observing the alleged discharge, and to the absence of evidence from any other witness that a shot was heard or seen, despite the heavy traffic stopped at the level crossing.

(4) Dettman's criminal history. It was conceded that Dettman has a criminal history commencing in 2007 but it was submitted it was not serious with prior matters being dealt with in the Magistrates' Court.

(5) The extent to which Dettman has complied with the conditions of any earlier grant of bail. It was conceded that Dettman's criminal history includes committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, failing to answer bail and contravening a condition of bail. However, it was submitted that Dettman was not on bail or summons for other offending at the time of the alleged offending and that at the time he breached bail on the earlier occasions the charges were far less serious and the consequences far less grave.

(6) Dettman's personal circumstances, associates, home environment and background. Dettman proposes to reside at his mother's home, with whom he is said to have a supportive relationship. Dettman also referred to his desire to maintain contact with his children, whom his mother hosts at her house for a sleepover once a fortnight and for dinner on occasions throughout the week, through this residential arrangement.

(7) The availability of employment. It was submitted that Dettman's mother can offer Dettman casual employment in her cleaning business for 2 to 3 days per week, and that Dettman acknowledges the importance of returning to work as part of any transition back into the community.

(8) The availability of treatment and bail support services. Dettman relied upon the support of the Court Integrated Services Program to assist him in seeking out treatment for substance abuse issues and in complying with future bail conditions. It was also noted that this would be Dettman's first engagement with the Court Integrated Services Program.

(9) The effect of the time Dettman has already spent in custody, including treatment provided in custody. This is the first occasion on which Dettman has spent time in custody, which, it was submitted, has provided a salutary lesson to him. It was also submitted that the forced abstinence from substances while in custody, and the provision of buprenorphine treatments, have ameliorated Dettman's state of substance dependency at the time of the alleged offending and improved his mental health.

(10) Any known view or likely view of the Complainant. It was acknowledged that the Complainant is opposed to the grant of bail.

(11) Any special vulnerability of Dettman. It was submitted that Dettman has been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and that he has been prescribed medication to moderate the symptoms he experiences in connection with this diagnosis. It was further submitted that, while no diagnosis was made nor any formal interventions put in place at the time, Dettman experienced behavioural and attentional issues at school, most likely as a result of his condition.

1. It was also submitted that any risk posed by Dettman could be sufficiently mitigated by the imposition of strict conditions of bail such that any risk associated with the grant of bail would be reduced to an acceptable level. The conditions proposed by Dettman were that he:

(1) Reside at a nominated address, being his mother's residence.

(2) Comply with all lawful directions of the Court Integrated Services Program.

(3) Observe a curfew from 10:00pm to 6:00am, unless in the company of his mother (though the proviso concerning being in the company of his mother was ultimately not pressed).

(4) Present at the front door of the nominated bail address upon police request during curfew hours.

(5) Not use a drug of dependence within the meaning of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act without lawful authorisation under that Act.

(6) Provide results of drug urinalysis testing to the informant once a week.

(7) Not contact any witness for the prosecution, except for the informant.

(8) Not leave the State of Victoria.

(9) Not leave Australia or attend any international points of departure.

1. Dettman's mother gave an undertaking to the court that, if Dettman were granted bail, she would immediately notify the informant if she became aware that he had breached any of his bail conditions.

1. The prosecution argued that Dettman has not demonstrated the existence of a compelling reason that justifies the grant of bail, and that Dettman poses an unacceptable risk within the meaning of section 4E of the Bail Act,[27] for the following reasons:

(1) The unlikelihood that the time Dettman will spend on remand if bail is not granted would exceed any term of imprisonment. It was submitted that offences with firearms are inherently serious, and it cannot be said that Dettman is likely to spend more time on remand than the length of any sentence that may be imposed upon conviction. In support of this proposition, the prosecution referred to 7 recent cases where sentences of between 3 years' and 6 years' imprisonment were imposed either solely for firearm related offending under section 131A of the Firearms Act or on an aggregate basis with related offences.[28]

(2) The extent of any delay. It was submitted that any delay to date in the prosecution of the case could not be viewed as unacceptable. To the extent that there have been delays in securing forensic evidence, it was submitted that the prosecution case does not depend on such evidence, and that such evidence would not necessarily be exculpatory to Dettman.

(3) The availability of treatment and bail support services. The prosecution submitted that the availability of treatment cannot be regarded as a compelling or protective factor, as Dettman has previously engaged with treatment, including alcohol and drug treatment, whilst in the community and subject to a community correction order. Further, it was submitted that there are concerns as to whether Dettman is ready to undergo treatment, due to conflicting information he has previously provided to Court Integrated Services Program staff during separate assessments.

(4) Inconsistencies in representations made by Dettman during assessments made for the purpose of preparing Court Integrated Services Program reports. It was submitted that the following inconsistencies undermine the reliability of reports produced in reliance on Dettman's representations: the age and circumstances in which Dettman began to use methylamphetamine, and details of his substance use more broadly; the characteristics of Dettman's family environment during his upbringing, which appear to have been presented by Dettman as more troubled and abusive in assessments made for the preparation of latter reports than earlier reports; and the nomination of Dettman's stepfather's address as Dettman's bail address for the purposes of the bail application hearing held on 23 June 2025, despite that address having been considered unsuitable as of April 2025. Further, it was submitted that these differences could be viewed as the result of Dettman deviating from representations made in his initial interviews with the Court Integrated Services Program in an attempt to strengthen his prospects of being granted bail.

(5) Dettman's personal circumstances, associates, home environment and background. It was submitted that there are concerns with Dettman's proposed bail address, in particular that Dettman's mother was already present and providing such support as she was able to at the time of Dettman's alleged offending. It was also submitted that Cipolla's negative influence on Dettman's life in the community would counteract any other interpersonal influences that may be viewed as protective factors.

(6) Community safety. Given the gravity of the alleged offending, and the alleged use of a firearm in public in the middle of the day with both the Complainant and other members of the community present, it was submitted that Dettman would pose a significant risk to the community if he were to reoffend in a similar manner.

(7) The strength of the prosecution's case. The prosecution submitted that the case against Dettman is strong on all charges. As well as the various sources of evidence non-exhaustively referred to above,[29] the prosecution responded to what were said by Dettman to be the primary triable issues in the case as follows:

(a) In relation to Dettman's alleged complicity in the discharge of the Firearm on Tendulkar Drive by his co-accused, it was submitted that Dettman's complicity is supported by inferences that may be drawn from the following circumstances surrounding the alleged discharge: Dettman being shown on closed-circuit television camera footage taking the first action in approaching the Complainant's car and yelling at him to open the door in an aggressive manner; that, given the co-accused allegedly exited the Statesman carrying the Firearm, Dettman must have been aware that his co-accused had the Firearm in the Statesman before Dettman exited the car; Dettman's failure to take any preventative action or offer any resistance after the co-accused allegedly pointed, attempted to fire and then fired the Firearm at the BMW; Dettman's willingness to immediately return to the Statesman to give chase to the Complainant after the alleged discharge of the Firearm; Dettman's alleged responsibility for at least pointing the Firearm at the Complainant on Leakes Road, if not actually firing it; Dettman allegedly carrying the Firearm after exiting the Statesman when it was abandoned; and Dettman continuing to assist his co-accused in attempting to retrieve the Statesman.

(b) Dettman's alleged discharge of the Firearm on Leakes Road was submitted to be supported by the following matters: closed-circuit television footage of the discharge on Tendulkar Drive confirms that the Firearm was operable; while the Complainant has not stated that a discharge occurred on Leakes Road, he has stated that he saw the Firearm protruding from the window of the Statesman in that location and that he heard the Firearm itself hit his car; the Police Witness has expertise in firearms and has stated that he heard the sound of a gunshot, including to triple zero operators contemporaneously to the alleged discharge; the co-accused has not denied there being a discharge of the Firearm on Leakes Road; that an inference is available from subsequent communications between Dettman, the co-accused and Cipolla, including from a fake news story Dettman is alleged to have created and sent to Cipolla, that Dettman believed he had discharged the Firearm and may have injured the Complainant; and, given the Complainant's observations of the alleged offending were essentially fleeting impressions gathered in a fast-paced and fear-inducing environment, any absence of a positive statement by the Complainant that there was a gunshot on Leakes Road does not diminish the probative value of other matters supporting the alleged discharge.

(c) In relation to Dettman's alleged drug trafficking, it was submitted that: the quantity of drugs he was allegedly found with could only be viewed as a traffickable quantity; the methylamphetamine was stored in a manner suggesting it had been prepared for sale, and to avoid detection from law enforcement and others; and a large number of text communications found on the phone that was in Dettman's possession when he was arrested discuss drug sales.

(8) Dettman's criminal history, and extent of non-compliance with previous court orders. It was submitted that Dettman's criminal history, which involves drug offences and other offences resulting in endangerment of the public, combined with 3 instances where Dettman has been found guilty of not complying with court orders, including failing to answer bail, committing indictable offences whilst on bail and breaching a conduct condition of bail, collectively undermine any confidence the court may have in Dettman's promises to comply with conditions of bail.

1. The prosecution did not accept the proposition that any risk posed by Dettman could be sufficiently mitigated by the imposition of the conditions of bail proposed by Dettman, and did not propose any alternative or additional conditions that might be said to reduce to an acceptable level any risk associated with a grant of bail to Dettman.

1. It was common ground between the parties that Dettman's application is subject to the compelling reason test on the basis that he is charged with offences to which Schedule 2 of the Bail Act applies.[30] As such, Dettman bears the onus of demonstrating a compelling reason justifying the grant of bail[31] and, if a compelling reason is shown, the court must then apply the unacceptable risk test.[32]
2. Having considered the matters raised, including the surrounding circumstances, Dettman has not established that a compelling reason exists that justifies the grant of bail. Although all the circumstances are relevant, there are some principal matters that lead to this conclusion.
3. Dettman's counsel properly accepted that the case against him with respect to the events at Tendulkar Drive is not a weak case. Indeed, on the evidence presented to the court today, it could only be described as a strong case. Although there is no evidence of any prior agreement of Dettman and his co-accused with respect to the use of a firearm or the discharge of a firearm, the conduct of Dettman recorded on video concerning the Complainant being confronted in the manner that he was gives rise to an inference that Dettman was not surprised in any way when the events unfolded in the manner in which they did. Leaving aside the potential issues concerning the alleged offending at Leakes Road as to whether or not the Firearm was discharged, the case could only be described as strong with respect to Dettman producing the Firearm and having it protrude from the Statesman towards the Complainant. Further, Dettman's possession of methylamphetamine on 13 February 2025 in a traffickable quantity also would appear to give rise to a strong prosecution case.
4. Furthermore, as was again properly accepted by counsel, the nature of the alleged offending with respect to the matters referred to above is extremely serious. With respect to each incident involving the Firearm, the conduct was engaged in in broad daylight in the suburbs of Melbourne.
5. Moreover, there has not been any delay in this proceeding that could be described as inordinate. With the trial date in late April 2026, there is little prospect that Dettman will spend more time on remand than any sentence that might be imposed if he were to be found guilty of the more serious charges.
6. The personal circumstances of Dettman, including those of his immediate family as a result of him being in custody, are extremely unfortunate. Nevertheless, the existence of such circumstances does not in itself give rise to a compelling reason.

1. In any event, if Dettman had satisfied the court that a compelling reason existed, I would have found that the prosecution has discharged its onus of establishing that Dettman presented as an unacceptable risk. There are a number of reasons for this.
2. First, repeating the circumstances of the alleged offending, the conduct was brazen and dangerous on any view of the case. The fact that Dettman was willing to approach and threaten a complete stranger in the manner that he did without any apparent reason gives rise to serious concerns about the safety of members of the community generally.
3. Secondly, although the evidence appears to demonstrate that Dettman has been free of substance abuse since his incarceration, other than his assurances, there is no probative evidence to suggest that he would not lapse into drugtaking again if he were released on bail. It is noted that no services are offered to be provided by the Court Integrated Services Program until 9 December 2025. Further, even if the application was adjourned so that the granting of bail were not to occur until then, the services offered to be provided are limited to weekly alcohol and drug counselling appointments, which on its face appears to be materially inadequate. Furthermore, other proposed steps and appointments have not been put in place to date. The proposed steps to attempt to avoid a scenario of relapse are very limited and could give no comfort that Dettman would not return to his lifestyle that he has lived for many years before his arrest. As is accepted by Dettman, his drugtaking in the past has resulted in him living an unsatisfactory lifestyle. Any lapse tending toward a reversion to that lifestyle would clearly give rise to serious risk of the community being endangered.
4. Thirdly, there is every prospect that Dettman will again breach his bail. History shows that Dettman has shown little regard for court orders in this regard.
5. Fourthly, Dettman is the person last known to be in possession of the Firearm. The Firearm has not been recovered. The fact that this item would appear to remain in the community in these circumstances would give rise to further serious risks if bail were granted.
6. Fifthly, the proposed strict bail conditions are not capable of rendering the risk an acceptable one. The imposition of a curfew would be of little value in circumstances where Dettman has shown a willingness to engage in seriously dangerous conduct threatening the safety of the community in the middle of the day in the neighbourhood of others, including small children. Further, for reasons already explained, the conditions do not come close to properly addressing the serious issues he has had with illicit substances.
7. Finally, when taking into account each of the matters referred to above in the context of the surrounding circumstances more generally, I am satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk that Dettman would, if released on bail, commit offences or otherwise endanger the safety or welfare of any person, whether by committing an offence that has that effect or by any other means; or fail to surrender into custody accordance with the bail undertaking.

1. Dettman has failed to demonstrate that there is a compelling reason that justifies the grant of bail. Accordingly, the application for bail must be refused.

[1] Dettman was charged with an offence listed in Schedule 1 of the Bail Act at the time, which was subsequently withdrawn. See par 1 above. See also Bail Act, s 4AA(1).

[3] He was 39 years of age at the time of the alleged offending.

[4] This report was prepared for the purpose of Dettman's unsuccessful application for bail in the County Court of Victoria on 18 August 2025. See par 5(3) above.

[5] These reports were prepared for the purpose of purposes of Dettman's initial 2 unsuccessful applications for bail in the Magistrates' Court at Melbourne. See par 5(1), (2) above.

[6] Section 4 of the Bail Amendment Act 2025 (Vic) repealed s 1B(1)(a) of the Bail Act, removing the importance of maximising the safety of the community of persons affected by crime to the greatest extent possible from the list of guiding principles in s 1B, and introduced that principle as a separate matter of overarching importance in a new s 1B(1AA). See also Re MMA (a pseudonym) (Bail Application) (No 2) [2025] VSC 154, [4(a)] (Gorton J).

[7] Bail Amendment (Tough Bail) Bill 2025 (Vic), Explanatory Memorandum, cl 4.

[8] Re SL [2025] VSC 571, [35] (Incerti J).

[9] Re Cartledge (Bail Application) [2025] VSC 177, [41] (Taylor JA).

[10] Bail Act, s 4C(3).

[11] Rodgers v The Queen [2019] VSCA 214, [43] (Beach, Kaye and Ashley JJA).

[14] Bail Act, s 4D(b).

[15] Ibid, s 4E(3)(a).

[16] Ibid, s 4E(3)(b).

[17] Re Boland [2024] VSC 85, [53] (Fox J).

[19] Bail Act, s 4E(1).

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

[21] Bail Act, s 4E(2).

[22] Ibid, ss 3AAA(1), 4C(3), 4E(3)(a).

[23] Ibid, s 5AAA(1).

[24] Ibid, s 5AAA(2).

[25] See par 56(3) below.

[26] Due to the operation of s 44 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).

[27] Specifically, an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of any person, of committing further offences whilst on bail (including indictable offences) and of failing to surrender into custody in accordance with the conditions of any grant of bail.

[28] Alessawi and Snowball v The King [2025] VSCA 23; Haddara v The King [2024] VSCA 269 (Macaulay and Kaye JJA); El-Hassan v The King [2023] VSCA 307 (Priest and Beach JJA); Director of Public Prosecutions v Braine [2022] VCC 798 (Judge Todd); Director of Public Prosecutions v Doodt [2021] VCC 1584 (Judge Tinney); Director of Public Prosecutions v Smiljanic [2020] VCC 495 (Judge Mullaly); Director of Public Prosecutions v Taylor [2019] VCC 2220 (Judge Gwynn).

[29] See par 24 above.

[30] Bail Act, s 4AA(3). See further par 50 above. See also Bail Act, Schedule 2, Items 23(a), 24(b), 30, 30F.

[31] Ibid, s 4C(2).

[32] Ibid, s 4C(4).