Re Joannou [2025] VSC 824 (19 December 2025)

(1) Trafficking a drug of dependence, namely cocaine, in a quantity not less than a large commercial quantity, contrary to section 71(1) of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic), alleged to have occurred at Melbourne between 22 July 2024 and 11 September 2025.

(2) In the alternative, trafficking a drug of dependence, namely cocaine, in a quantity not less than a commercial quantity, contrary to section 71AA(1) of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act, alleged to have occurred at Melbourne between 22 July 2024 and 11 September 2025.

(3) In the further alternative, trafficking a drug of dependence, namely cocaine, contrary to section 71AC(1) of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act, alleged to have occurred at Melbourne between 22 July 2024 and 11 September 2025.

(4) Possessing a traffickable quantity of firearms, namely more than 2 unregistered firearms, contrary to section 7C(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (Vic), alleged to have occurred at Melbourne on 23 September 2024.

(5) Possessing material or equipment for trafficking in a drug of dependence, namely 2 brick press machines, contrary to section 71A(1) of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act, alleged to have occurred at Fraser Rise on 1 October 2025.

(6) Dealing with proceeds of crime, namely $182,030 in Australian currency, contrary to section 194(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), alleged to have occurred at Fraser Rise on 1 October 2025.

(7) Possessing a prohibited weapon without an exemption or approval, namely 3 cannisters of oleoresin capsicum spray, contrary to section 5AA of the Control of Weapons Act 1990 (Vic), alleged to have occurred at Fraser Rise on 1 October 2025.

(8) 6 counts of possessing a drug of dependence, respectively cannabis, diazepam, Aromasin (exemestane), Primobolan (methenolone enanthate), trenbolone enanthate and testosterone enanthate, each contrary to section 73(1) of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act, all alleged to have occurred at Fraser Rise on 1 October 2025.

(9) 5 counts of possessing a Schedule 4 poison without authorisation or licence to do so, respectively somatropin, raloxifene hydrochloride, clomiphene citrate and 2 counts in respect of Lyrica (pregabalin), each contrary to section 36B(2) of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act, all alleged to have occurred at Fraser Rise on 1 October 2025.

1. In addition to Joannou, a co-accused has been charged in connection with Operation Fire ("the Fire Co-Accused"). The Fire Co-Accused has pleaded guilty to drug-trafficking related charges. He has been granted bail and is due to be sentenced on 3 February 2026. Two additional, separate co-accused have also been charged and are on remand in connection with Operation Poker.
2. Joannou has been on remand since the date of his arrest. On 31 October 2025, Joannou applied for bail in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria at Melbourne. The application was adjourned part heard until 12 November 2025, at which time bail was refused on the basis that Joannou had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances to justify the grant of bail. Service of the hand up brief is due to occur on 18 December 2025, and the matter is next listed for committal mention on 29 January 2026.
3. On 25 November 2025, Joannou filed a notice of intention to make an application for bail in this court. He relies upon a number of matters in support of the existence of exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of bail.
4. These include the strength of the case against him, the likely delay before the matter will come to trial, his limited criminal history and the fact that he has no other matters pending, personal circumstances (including his partner's pregnancy and declining mental health, as well as his family's dependence on him for financial support), the availability of stable accommodation and employment to him, his vulnerability as a sufferer of poor mental health, the availability of treatment services in respect of his substance abuse issues and mental health and the availability of substantial bail guarantees from his mother-in-law and a friend.
5. The prosecution opposes bail on the basis that Joannou has failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. Even if Joannou could establish exceptional circumstances, the prosecution submits he would present an unacceptable risk if released on bail.
6. For the reasons that follow, Joannou's application for bail is granted.

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

1. By way of summary, it is alleged that Joannou trafficked a large amount of cocaine to the Fire Co-Accused.
2. On 19 October 2024, the Fire Co-Accused was intercepted while driving a vehicle in Shepparton. Investigators conducted a search of the Fire Co-Accused and the vehicle he was driving, and located and seized a mobile phone and approximately 70 small ziplock bags allegedly containing in total approximately 10 grams of cocaine, 11 grams of ketamine and 37 grams of methylamphetamine.
3. The Fire Co-Accused was arrested, and later that night search warrants were executed at the Fire Co-Accused's residence in Shepparton and a storage shed near Shepparton. It is alleged that investigators located further illicit drugs at both locations, including cocaine.
4. Relying on information provided to police by the Fire Co-Accused,[1] as well as analysis of information, including photographs and videos, contained within 2 encrypted messaging applications on the Fire Co-Accused's mobile phone, it is alleged that Joannou trafficked cocaine to the Fire Co-Accused or another associate of the Fire Co-Accused, or both, on at least the following occasions, in the following approximate amounts:

(1) 2 ounces on or around 22 July 2024.

(2) 2 ounces on or around 9 August 2024.

(3) 2 ounces on or around 16 August 2024.

(4) 2 ounces on or around 22 August 2024.

(5) 2 ounces on or around 30 August 2024.

(6) 4 ounces on or around 19 September 2024.

(7) 4 ounces on or around 8 October 2024.

1. It is also alleged, by reference to the same sources of information, that on 23 September 2024, Joannou asked the Fire Co-Accused by encrypted message whether the Fire Co-Accused could move firearms, namely a Glock 22 and a fully automatic rifle, that the Fire Co-Accused could make between $2,500 and $5,000 for moving each firearm and provided sale prices and photographs of each firearm.

1. Towards the end of Operation Fire, it is alleged that investigators also identified Joannou to be trafficking drugs to the first co-accused in connection with Operation Poker ("the First Poker Co-Accused").
2. It is alleged that, by reference to call charge records, road safety cameras on the Hume Highway, mobile phone geolocation data derived from cell tower locations and information obtained under telecommunication intercept warrants, Joannou met with the First Poker Co-Accused or an associate of the First Poker Co-Accused, or both, as follows:

(1) On 25 January 2025, the First Poker Co-Accused travelled to Melbourne from Shepparton, met with Joannou at Taylors Lakes at approximately 1.28pm, and then returned to Shepparton.

(2) On 2 March 2025, the First Poker Co-Accused met with Joannou at Highpoint Shopping Centre, Maribyrnong between approximately 1.05pm and 2.00pm.

(3) On 16 April 2025, the First Poker Co-Accused travelled to Melbourne from Shepparton, met with Joannou in Balwyn, and then returned to Shepparton.

(4) On 6 May 2025, the First Poker Co-Accused travelled to Melbourne from Shepparton, met with Joannou in Keilor at approximately 3.08pm, and then returned to Shepparton.

(5) On 24 May 2025, text messages sent by the First Poker Co-Accused to Joannou stating "yo" and "1 hour bro" suggest they may have met that day.

(6) On 27 May 2025, an associate of the First Poker Co-Accused met with Joannou at Melbourne Airport at approximately 5.25pm. It is further alleged that the next day, on 28 May 2025, the First Poker Co-Accused arranged to collect from that associate what the associate had collected from Joannou the previous day.

(7) On 5 June 2025, the First Poker Co-Accused travelled to Melbourne from Shepparton, met with Joannou in Balwyn, and then returned to Shepparton.

(8) On 12 June 2025, Joannou visited the First Poker Co-Accused at a location described by the First Poker Co-Accused to an associate as "the job site".

(9) On 16 June 2025, the First Poker Co-Accused travelled to Melbourne from Shepparton, met with Joannou in Brunswick, and then returned to Shepparton.

(10) On 30 June 2025, the First Poker Co-Accused travelled to Melbourne from Shepparton, met with Joannou in Essendon, and then returned to Shepparton.

1. It is alleged that on 11 September 2025, the First Poker Co-Accused sent the second co-accused in connection with Operation Poker ("the Second Poker Co-Accused") a location text indicating a meeting point at a petrol station on the Western Ring Road traversing Melbourne's northern and western outskirts ("the Petrol Station") and provided the following instructions over a phone call:

...you will need to open that 'thing' I gave you and you will see that I have bundled one lot separately. There is about 4-5 bundled together and that's for one guy, for my 'OG' and the other one is bundled separately, about 5 for the "other one"...

1. It is further alleged, by reference to closed circuit television footage obtained from the Petrol Station that captures the period between 3.00pm and 3.40pm on 11 September 2025, that at approximately 3.30pm on that day a white Mercedes ("the Mercedes") approached a truck in which the Second Poker Co-Accused was sitting in the driver's seat, that the Second Poker Co-Accused exited the truck and entered the Mercedes. It is alleged that Joannou was the driver of the Mercedes. Records of a car dealership allegedly indicate that Joannou had signed the Mercedes out for a test drive between 10 September 2025 and 12 September 2025.
2. Later that day, it is alleged that the Second Poker Co-Accused requested that the First Poker Co-Accused pick him up from a location in Grahamvale.
3. The First Poker Co-Accused was intercepted later that same day while driving a vehicle in Shepparton. It is alleged that, upon approaching the stationary vehicle, investigators observed the First Poker Co-Accused utilising a mobile phone in the driver's seat before putting the phone next to his leg on the driver's seat, and that the Second Poker Co-Accused was sitting in the passenger's seat.
4. Investigators conducted a pat down search of the First Poker Co-Accused and the Second Poker Co-Accused next to the vehicle, as well as a search of the vehicle. They allegedly located 0.6 of a gram of methylamphetamine in the glove box of the vehicle, and an assortment of unsecured firearm ammunition in a battery box located in the draws of the canopy tray attached to the vehicle.
5. The First Poker Co-Accused and the Second Poker Co-Accused were both arrested and taken to the Shepparton Police station. It is alleged that, upon the Second Poker Co-Accused removing his pants for a more thorough search, a vacuum sealed package containing approximately 123 grams of cocaine, appearing to have been cut straight off a brick of cocaine, fell out. It is also alleged that a brown paper bag containing approximately 58 grams of methylamphetamine was located in the Second Poker Co-Accused's pants.
6. While the police interview of the First Poker Co-Accused was suspended, a search warrant of residence was executed. The First Poker Co-Accused's partner was present at the residence and was arrested. During their search of the residence, investigators allegedly located, among other things, approximately 1.1 grams of cocaine, 0.7 of a gram of methylamphetamine, 2 firearms and an assortment of unsecured ammunition.
7. It is alleged that, in her recorded interview with police, the First Poker Co-Accused's partner made admissions to her knowledge of the First Poker Co-Accused trafficking drugs of dependence over many years, and to having assisted him in facilitating 2 drug transactions.

1. On 1 October 2025 at approximately 8.13am, police executed search warrants at Joannou's residence. Joannou's wife and child were present at the time. Joannou was not there, however he called his wife shortly after the police's attendance and indicated to police that he would return home.
2. It is alleged that, during their search of the residence, police located, among other things, 2 brick press machines and a brick press plate with cocaine residue on it, $182,030 in Australian currency (alleged to be proceeds of crime), 3 cannisters of oleoresin capsicum spray, 7 ziplock bags containing cannabis, 2 sleeves collectively containing 12 diazepam tablets, 14 Aromasin tablets, 2 Primobolan enanthate steroid vials, 2 press sealed bags collectively containing 28 unknown white tablets, 8 testosterone enanthate vials, 17 somatropin vials, 10 Raloxiheal tablets, 35 Promifen (clomiphene citrate) tablets and 2 sleeves collectively containing 23 Lyrica (pregabalin) tablets. It is also alleged that police located an Australian passport in the name of another person.[2]
3. Joannou arrived at his residence at approximately 9.45am that morning and was arrested. It is alleged that, based on a preliminary analysis of his mobile phone, before returning home Joannou had deleted all encrypted messaging applications, all social media applications and some text messages.
4. The prosecution allege that Joannou trafficked a total of over 823 grams, or over approximately 29 ounces, of cocaine between 22 July 2024 and 11 September 2025.

1. Joannou is a 28 year old man with a wife and 3 or 4 year old child. His wife is pregnant with their second child. She is due to give birth in February of next year. Joannou has been partnered with his wife for approximately 14 years, having met her when they attended school together. They have been married for around 4 years.
2. Joannou was born and raised in Melbourne, predominantly in public housing in Sydenham. While Joannou is the only child of his parents' relationship, he has 8 half-siblings from other relationships of his father. Those half-siblings are all older than him. With the exception of some contact with one of his older half-brothers, he does not have a relationship with those half-siblings.
3. Joannou's father suffered from an acquired brain injury and alcoholism, and perpetrated domestic violence within the household, including towards Joannou. Joannou reports being sexually abused by his father, along with physical and emotional abuse. Joannou's mother passed away when he was 10 years of age. After this occurred, the Department of Health and Human Services became involved in Joannou's care for a period of time.
4. While Joannou completed year 12, his education was interrupted as he took on caring responsibilities for his father as a result of his father's declining physical and mental health. Joannou was the primary carer for his father in the final 3 years of his father's life, during which his father suffered from Alzheimer's disease. His father passed away when Joannou was 21 years old.
5. Joannou reports that he has never been unemployed. His most recent occupation was as a contract labourer for a bath and shower repairer, working between 30 and 50 hours per week. A director of that business provided a letter to the court confirming that Joannou had worked for the business as a contractor for many years, that he has been reliable and committed over that period and that there is immediate and ongoing work scheduled for Joannou with the business if he is released on bail. The court was also provided with a copy of Joannou's tax return and notice of assessment for the financial year ended June 2024.
6. Joannou's wife has not worked for nearly 5 years following a workplace injury. Aside from government support payments, Joannou is the sole financial provider for his family. The family has been experiencing financial strain since Joannou has been in custody and unable to generate income.
7. Joannou's wife's mental health has declined since Joannou's arrest and remand. She has sought therapeutic supports to assist with that decline, which is said to be related to the circumstances of, and to have been exacerbated by, Joannou being placed in custody. With Joannou in custody, Joannou's wife is the sole caregiver for their child at a time when she is in her final trimester of pregnancy.
8. Joannou has admitted to being a heavy drinker and a daily abuser of multiple substances, which has been ongoing for many years. He has not previously engaged in drug and alcohol treatment, and has had limited counselling to date. He has also previously been assessed as suffering from anxiety and depression, but is not currently prescribed any medication for those conditions. Whilst on remand, Joannou has completed 5 different 2 hour modules "delivered as practical workshops to help build knowledge and skills and develop strategies to encourage self-reflection and positive future directions".

1. This is Joannou's first time in custody, and he is not currently on bail or summons for any other offence. On 23 July 2024, he was convicted in the Magistrates' Court at Sunshine of possessing amphetamine, possessing a drug of dependence (a prescription drug), trafficking diazepam, ecstasy, cocaine, cannabis and methylamphetamine, dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime and possessing a prohibited weapon without exemption or approval. He was sentenced to a 3 year community correction order comprising 300 hours of community work.
2. Joannou has previously been on bail. This transpired between 6 June 2021, being the date of his arrest in respect of the charges for which he was convicted, and the date of that conviction on 23 July 2024. Joannou has completed approximately 80 of the 300 hours of unpaid community work he was ordered to do as part of that order.
3. Leaving aside the current charges, there was no evidence of any breach of that order.[3]

1. For the purposes of this application, the court was assisted by a letter from an addiction counsellor responsible for designing and delivering an 18 week non-residential program aimed at addressing participants' alcohol and drug addiction, titled the "Living Free Program". This letter confirmed that its author had conducted an alcohol and other drug assessment with Joannou, attending by videoconference call from custody on 28 October 2025. Joannou has been assessed as suitable to participate in the program. In the addiction counsellor's opinion, Joannou would benefit from an increase in understanding his addiction, and that the program would provide him an opportunity to gain strategies to deal with relapse prevention, cravings and triggers.
2. The "Living Free Program" purports to have been designed around the experiences that its participants have as they seek to re-integrate back into society and live a life free of addiction without the crime-related lifestyles that often attach to such addiction. It is broken down into 3 separate stages, comprised of 6 weeks each, over which the number of contact points per week between counsellors and participants is steadily decreased. The program's sessions feature a mixture of check-in group calls, group zoom classes, in person counselling or coaching sessions and assistance with urine drug screening requirements, as well as the general availability of the organising addiction counsellor for contact by participants as required.
3. The addiction counsellor gave evidence at the hearing by which she confirmed Joannou's suitability. She stated that she believed the period of time Joannou had spent not taking drugs while on remand, coupled with Joannou's stated determination to free himself from substance abuse, provided an appropriate premise for the out-patient program. In part this was based on her experience of treating others who had successfully participated in the "Living Free Program" as part of their bail conditions.
4. Joannou is prepared to engage with the "Living Free Program" including submitting to random and regular drug screening. It was submitted he is motivated to break the cycle of addiction that currently affects him and to deal with his childhood trauma.

1. Section 1B(1AA), which was inserted into the Bail Act in March of this year,[4] 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.[5]
2. 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,[6] 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.[7]
3. 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. Trafficking a drug of dependence in either a large commercial quantity or a commercial quantity is a Schedule 1 offence.[8] Accordingly, the exceptional circumstances test applies to the decision of whether to grant bail.[9] It follows that bail must be refused unless Joannou demonstrates the existence of exceptional circumstances that justify the grant of bail.[10]
2. The phrase "exceptional circumstances" is not defined in the Bail Act. Numerous authorities have established that, to be exceptional, the circumstances must be such as to take the case out of the ordinary or norm so as to justify the grant of bail.[11] Although the threshold is high, it is not an impossible standard to reach. It may be met by a combination of matters, even when none of the individual circumstances is considered exceptional.[12]

1. If satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist, the court must then determine whether an applicant presents an unacceptable risk of the kind referred to in section 4E(1) of the Bail Act.[13] In assessing that risk, the court must consider whether the risk posed may be mitigated by any conditions of bail.[14]
2. The court must refuse bail if satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk, notwithstanding that the exceptional circumstances test has been met.[15] The notion of unacceptable risk does not concern merely any risk of offending. Rather, the question is whether such a risk is unacceptable.[16] The burden of proving that an applicant poses an unacceptable risk rests with the prosecution.[17]

1. In considering whether exceptional circumstances exist and whether an applicant poses an unacceptable risk, the court must take into account the surrounding circumstances.[18] Such surrounding circumstances include, but are not limited to, the following matters listed in section 3AAA(1) of the Bail Act:

(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;

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

(i) was on bail for another offence; or

...

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

(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 -

(iii) experiencing any ill health, including mental illness; or

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

...

(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 endanger the safety or welfare of any other person, interfere with a witness or fail to surrender into custody.[19] 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.[20]

1. In support of bail, the surrounding circumstances were addressed. It was submitted that exceptional circumstances were established by the combined weight of several factors, namely:

(1) The strength of the prosecution case. It was submitted that there are genuine triable issues in the prosecution's case that militate against a finding that the prosecution case against Joannou is strong, namely:

(a) With respect to the most serious charge of trafficking a large commercial quantity of cocaine it was submitted it is foredoomed to fail for the following reasons: (1) a large commercial quantity of cocaine is 1 kilogram (mixed weight) or 750 grams (pure weight);[21] (2) assuming the weight Joannou is alleged to have trafficked, being 823 grams, is made good by the prosecution, the threshold for a large commercial quantity could only be met if approximately 91 percent of the cocaine allegedly trafficked were pure cocaine;[22] (3) while the 123 grams of cocaine allegedly seized from the Second Poker Co-Accused is able to be analysed for purity, given the balance of the cocaine alleged to have been trafficked by Joannou is not available for analysis, its purity will need to be inferred from the range of purities at which cocaine may be trafficked at the street level of distribution; (4) even assuming that the results of analysis of the 123 grams indicated high purity, a tribunal of fact would need to infer an improbably high purity percentage pertaining to the remaining weight of cocaine alleged to have been trafficked in order for the large commercial quantity threshold to be met; and (5) such an inference would not logically be available and would result in an irrational finding of fact, because there would be no basis on which to rationally exclude the available inference that the level of purity of the cocaine allegedly trafficked (but not seized, and thus not available for analysis) was in fact much lower than that required to reach the large commercial quantity threshold. On this basis, it was submitted that, taking the prosecution case at its highest, Joannou could be committed to stand trial on the charges of trafficking a commercial quantity of cocaine and trafficking simpliciter, but not the charge of trafficking a large commercial quantity of cocaine.

(b) In relation to the messages relied upon, it was submitted the prosecution will be required to identify Joannou as the user of particular "handles" or usernames on encrypted messaging applications that are allegedly identified as being implicated in each particular drug transaction that Joannou is alleged to have participated in. It was submitted that the prosecution will need to establish that Joannou was the only user of that handle, and that Joannou was the user for each transaction he alleged engaged in. It was further submitted that there is only limited, largely indirect evidence available to the prosecution to do so, namely closed circuit television footage of a meeting between Joannou and the Fire Co-Accused on 16 August 2024, admitted on Joannou's behalf to be consistent with contemporaneous encrypted messaging involving the handle alleged to have been used by Joannou,[23] and a combination of closed circuit television footage and records of a car dealership alleged to place Joannou at the Petrol Station on 11 September 2025.[24] It was submitted on Joannou's behalf that there is no direct evidence of Joannou attending the Petrol Station, as the available closed circuit television footage does not identify the driver of the Mercedes at the Petrol Station and, further, even if it were concluded that Joannou was the driver of the Mercedes, the prosecution would need to exclude the possibility of there being some other reason, unrelated to the meeting at the Petrol Station, for the Second Poker Co-Accused being in possession of the cocaine allegedly found on him by police later that day. Aside from these particular evidentiary issues and limitations, it was submitted that, outside of these 2 particular occasions more than a year apart, it does not follow that Joannou exclusively used the relevant handles throughout the entire period over which he is alleged to have trafficked cocaine. Nor, Joannou submitted, does the available evidence establish what substance, if any, was supplied.

(c) On the question of what might have been transacted, it was submitted that the prosecution will face difficulties in proving specifically which drug of dependence, and in what quantity, was allegedly trafficked by Joannou on each particular occasion. These difficulties were said to be exacerbated by the fact that, aside from the cocaine allegedly found on the Second Poker Co-Accused on 11 September 2025, no drugs alleged to have been trafficked by Joannou have been seized. Further, it was submitted that admissions made by each of Joannou's 3 co-accused, including as to what was supplied to them, are inadmissible against Joannou, and that alleged photographs of illicit items are of low probative value insofar as they may be used by the prosecution for the purpose of identifying the precise nature and quantity of what is allegedly depicted in each photograph.

(d) Finally, aside from a brick press plate found at Joannou's residence and alleged to bear traces of cocaine, Joannou was not found in possession of any cocaine. It was submitted that it would be open to infer that the brick press plate, if confirmed to bear traces of cocaine, may have come into contact with cocaine at a time when Joannou did not possess the plate. Similarly, it was also submitted that it would be open to a tribunal of fact to find that other items found at Joannou's home, such as a vacuum sealer machine, digital scales and cash, were not possessed or used by Joannou in connection with drug trafficking.

(2) Whether the length of time Joannou will spend on remand if bail is not granted would exceed any likely term of imprisonment. It was submitted that, assuming Joannou is not committed to face the charge of trafficking a large commercial quantity of cocaine,[25] he faces a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment, rather than life, and that current sentencing practices reveal significantly shorter sentences imposed for trafficking amounts less than large commercial quantities. It was also submitted that, if the submissions made on Joannou's behalf generally in relation to purported weaknesses in the prosecution case are made good, then Joannou will predominantly face sentences for summary offences, for which a term of imprisonment is not inevitable.[26] It was further submitted that, in light of Joannou having served approximately 11 weeks on remand, there was a distinct possibility of any sentence imposed not exceeding time already spent on remand.

(3) The likelihood of the trial being delayed. It was submitted that a trial is not likely to occur until 2028, and probably the middle of that year, with the result that, if Joannou were not to be granted bail, he would miss the birth of his second child and remain absent for the early years of that child's life. The prospect of delay was supported by the concession by the prosecution that there will be outstanding items not served as part of the hand up brief on 18 December 2025, in particular forensic analysis results of seized substances and DNA samples,[27] as well as transcription of intercepted phone calls.[28] It was submitted that this will have a flow-on effect, in that Joannou will not be able, or required, to finalise his application for leave to cross-examine witnesses at the committal mention on 29 January 2026. Further, it was submitted that such delay was intolerable in light of the balance of surrounding circumstances that follow.

(4) Joannou's limited prior criminal history. It was noted that Joannou only has 1 prior conviction, and that this is his first time in prison.

(5) Joannou's personal circumstances, associations, home environment and background. It was submitted that stable accommodation is available at the same residence at which Joannou was living when he was arrested. It was further submitted that Joannou's partner (and child) are dependent on him both financially and emotionally, and that his partner's mental health has deteriorated as a result of him being arrested and held on remand. These considerations were submitted to take on pronounced significance in circumstances where Joannou's child is so young, and his partner is expected to give birth to their second child within approximately 2 months.

(6) The availability of therapeutic treatment. It was submitted that counselling to treat Joannou's drug addiction and to check his abstinence by random drug screening would be of utility to Joannou in seeking to overcome his addiction, and that he is prepared to engage in such treatment.

(7) The availability of employment. It was submitted that contract work is immediately available to Joannou on a full time equivalent basis if he were to be released on bail.

1. It was also submitted that it would be possible to sufficiently mitigate any risk associated with a grant of bail. A bail guarantee has been offered by:

(1) Joannou's mother-in-law, in the amount of $25,000 by way of cash deposit. In an affidavit affirmed by Joannou's mother-in-law, she confirmed that the money she has offered by way of guarantee is made up of her savings and a redundancy payment she previously received.

(2) A friend of Joannou, Predrag Stefanovic ("Stefanovic"), in the amount of $100,000 by way of cash deposit. In an affidavit affirmed by Stefanovic, he confirmed that the money he has offered by way of guarantee is made up of savings he has earned through his business and through his salary as an employee. Stefanovic admitted to his criminal history and provided details of that history which was dated (his last offence of being in possession of cannabis in May 2018) of a relatively limited nature.

1. Both Joannou's mother-in-law and Stefanovic confirmed that they understand the charges against Joannou, and that their duties and liabilities as prospective guarantor, including the possibility of forfeiting their surety if Joannou were to fail to comply with conditions of bail, had been explained to them. Stefanovic also provided details as to the steps he will take to endeavour to ensure Joannou's compliance with any conditions of bail. While providing evidence at the hearing, Stefanovic provided an undertaking to the court that he would advise police if Joannou breached any condition of bail.
2. Stefanovic's offer of the bail guarantee represented the total of his available savings.[29] His generosity was explained on the basis that he has known Joannou for many years and that he is like a little brother to him in circumstances where Joannou does not otherwise have any avenues of support.
3. Further, any risk that Joannou would pose if granted bail was contended to be ameliorated to an acceptable level by reason of the following bail conditions proposed on his behalf, namely that Joannou:

(1) Reside at [the proposed bail address].

(2) Abide by a curfew of 10.00pm to 5.00am (and present to the door upon request by any member of Victoria Police).

(3) Report to [the nominated police station], daily between 9.00am and 5.00pm.

(4) Surrender valid passports or any other valid travel documents held within 24 hours of release to the informant and not apply for any other.

(5) Not attend any points of international departure.

(6) Not leave Australia.

(7) Not leave the State of Victoria.

(8) Not contact witnesses for the prosecution other than the informant.

(9) Not associate with any co-accused.

(10) Possess and use only 1 mobile phone.

(11) Provide the international mobile equipment identity number, phone number and any password or personal identification number for the phone to the informant within 12 hours of first having access to the mobile phone and notify the informant of any change to the international mobile equipment identity number, phone number, password or personal identification number within 12 hours of change.

(12) Not use any end-to-end encrypted messaging applications.

(13) Produce any mobile phone in his possession for inspection at the request of any member of Victoria Police.

(14) Undergo urine analysis testing twice a week, and also undergo random urine analysis as directed as part of the "Living Free Program".

1. In response to the respondent's submissions on unacceptable risk, it was submitted on Joannou's behalf that:

(1) The dire consequences for his partner and young family if Joannou were to commit a schedule 1 or 2 offence while on bail,[30] combined with his limited criminal history, significantly reduce the risk of Joannou committing such an offence if released on bail.

(2) There are no witnesses that Joannou would pose a risk of interfering with, as no co-accused has made a statement, and whatever representations may have been made in his co-accused's records of interview cannot be admitted against Joannou. It was submitted that, if a co-accused were intending to make a statement, given it has now been 3 months since the alleged offending, they would have done so by now. Further, it was also submitted that, even if one or more co-accused were a witness, there is no behavioural history supporting the notion that Joannou would interfere with such witness(es), or more broadly act in a violent or threatening manner.

(3) Joannou does not pose a flight risk or a risk of failing to answer bail, as he has strong ties to Victoria. It was submitted that Joannou's alleged non-compliance with the community correction order that he was subject to at the time of the alleged offending does not speak to Joannou's alleged status as a flight risk and that, in any event, Joannou was performing his obligations under the community correction order by having completed 80 of the 300 hours of ordered community work within the first year of a 3 year order.

1. The prosecution submitted that Joannou relies on a combination of factors which do not take his case out of the ordinary, and that he had accordingly not reached the high threshold of establishing exceptional circumstances, for the following reasons:

(1) The strength of the prosecution case. It was submitted that while the prosecution's case is supported by multiple elements of circumstantial evidence,[31] it is not weak. The prosecution responded as follows to specific issues with the prosecution case that had been raised by Joannou:

(a) In response to Joannou's contentions regarding the difficulty of connecting him to the encrypted messaging application "handles" he is alleged to have used to traffick drugs,[32] the prosecution submitted that the combination of those encrypted messages with closed circuit television footage establishes an "irresistible" link between Joannou and the relevant handles. In particular, the prosecution responded to the specific alleged drug sales highlighted in submissions made on Joannou's behalf by submitting that:

(i) In relation to the alleged sale of cocaine by Joannou to the Fire Co-Accused on 16 August 2024, it was submitted that encrypted messages sent by the handle alleged to have been used by Joannou correlate directly to actions taken by persons identifiable on closed circuit television footage captured at the venue at which the sale is alleged to have occurred. Without being exhaustive, these correlations were submitted to include: (1) closed circuit television footage captured Joannou arriving at the venue with his wife, who was carrying a bag, which is correlated to a message from Joannou's alleged handle to the Fire Co-Accused stating "Its in my missus purse" (sic); (2) a correlation between Joannou's location within the venue as captured by closed circuit television footage and a message sent from Joannou's alleged handle to the Fire Co-Accused indicating his location at that same time; and (3) a message sent from Joannou's alleged handle to the Fire Co-Accused providing details for the proposed mechanics of the alleged drug transaction correlates with closed circuit television footage that allegedly captured Joannou and the Fire Co-Accused entering the same bathroom separately at the relevant time, remaining there for a period of time and then leaving separately.

(ii) In relation to the alleged sale of cocaine by Joannou to the Second Poker Co-Accused at the Petrol Station on 11 September 2025, while it was conceded that Joannou cannot be seen as the driver of the Mercedes on closed circuit television footage, it was submitted that the combination of the Mercedes having been signed out for a test drive by a person using Joannou's driver licence the previous day, with the Mercedes being returned on 12 September 2025, together with the identification of the Mercedes itself at the Petrol Station at the relevant time on 11 September 2025, is sufficient to enable an inference to be drawn that Joannou was the driver of the Mercedes at the relevant time.

(b) In relation to the items seized at Joannou's home on 1 October 2025,[33] it was submitted that the availability of any inference invited by Joannou, that certain items found in Joannou's home were not in fact items that were ancillary to drug trafficking, was significantly curtailed by the inherent improbability of Joannou and his family's luxurious lifestyle having been maintained by Joannou's limited, legitimate financial means. This submission was supported in particular by reference to the value of 2 luxury watches found at Joannou's home and a luxury car recently purchased, apparently without loan, when compared to Joannou's declared taxable income for the financial year ended June 2024.[34]

(c) It was submitted that, while Joannou's submissions had gone into some detail regarding the current state of the evidence available to the prosecution, it is not the role of the court on this application to analyse that evidence and make findings.[35] This delineation of the proper role of the court on a bail application, insofar as assessing the strength of the prosecution case is concerned, was submitted to be particularly important in circumstances such as the present, where the application for bail has been made based on a limited remand brief and preliminary evidence only.[36] Taking these considerations together, it was submitted that even if the court accepted that Joannou had identified challenges in proving the most serious charge against him, namely trafficking a large commercial quantity of cocaine, this would not necessarily be sufficient of itself to deliver a "knock out" point likely to ultimately defeat the prosecution's case at trial and thereby operate in favour of the establishment of exceptional circumstances.[37]

(2) The probability of delay and whether the length of time Joannou will spend on remand if bail is not granted would exceed any likely term of imprisonment. It was submitted that the head charge of trafficking a large commercial quantity of cocaine has a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a standard sentence of 16 years. On the alternative charge of trafficking a commercial quantity, it was submitted that the median term of imprisonment, based on a recent statistical study of sentences imposed in the County Court of Victoria and the Supreme Court of Victoria, is 4 years' imprisonment. Given the alleged offending occurred while Joannou was subject to a community correction order, it was submitted that a further community correction order was unlikely to be imposed as a component of any sentence. It was further submitted that a sentencing court would likely take the nexus between the alleged trafficking operation and Joannou's family home into account as an aggravating feature of the offending. Therefore, by combination of these factors, it was submitted that even with a delay of up to 2 or so years before the matter came to trial, Joannou's time spent on remand if bail were not granted would not exceed his ultimate sentence if convicted.

(3) The availability of therapeutic treatment. While it was conceded that counselling is a valuable form of rehabilitation, and its availability may be a relevant consideration in determining whether to grant bail when the alleged offending is driven by addiction, it was submitted that Joannou's alleged offending, namely drug trafficking on a commercial scale, was primarily motivated by financial profit. It was contended that the alleged offending was not caused by Joannou's addiction, and went considerably beyond the erratic behaviour of a user in the grips of substance dependency, and as such the availability of therapeutic treatment was submitted to be irrelevant for the purposes of assessing the existence of exceptional circumstances within the current application.[38]

(4) The availability of bail guarantees. While it was acknowledged that the provision of sureties is relevant to considering whether exceptional circumstances exist, as well as to the potential mitigation of risk associated with a proposed grant of bail:

(a) In relation to the surety offered by Joannou's mother-in-law, it was submitted that the amount offered is an inconsequential amount when viewed in the context of the financial means available to Joannou as a result of his alleged drug trafficking activities.[39]

(b) The respondent objected to the surety offered by Stefanovic, submitting that he is not an appropriate bail guarantor in light of his character and criminal history, which includes a history of drug possession.[40] It was further submitted that the surety offered by Stefanovic would not mitigate the risks associated with granting Joannou bail, as their relationship of mere friendship means that Joannou may be less concerned about the prospect of the surety's forfeiture if he were to breach his conditions of bail than if the relationship had some other, stronger or more enduring foundation, such as that shared with an immediate family member.[41]

(5) The availability of stable accommodation. The proposed bail address was opposed on the basis that it is the location where the search warrant pertaining to Joannou was executed, and where alleged drug trafficking took place. It was submitted that, in light of their presence in the home over the relevant period of alleged offending, the presence of Joannou's family in the proposed bail address would not constitute a protective factor, and does not assist in establishing exceptional circumstances.

(6) The likelihood of hardship to Joannou's family if bail is refused. While it was acknowledged that such hardship is a relevant consideration, it was submitted that family hardship, even in the context of Joannou's wife being in an advanced stage of pregnancy, is not sufficient to establish exceptional circumstances in this case.[42] In support of this contention, the respondent referred to the availability of supports to Joannou's wife, extraneous to Joannou, that had been indicated in materials filed by Joannou in support of his application.

(7) Joannou's prior criminal history. It was submitted that the court must have regard to the fact that, following Joannou's conviction on 23 July 2024,[43] Joannou was subject to a community correction order at the time of the alleged offending.

1. The prosecution also submitted that even if exceptional circumstances were established, Joannou poses an unacceptable risk of:

(1) Committing an offence while on bail, including a schedule 1 or schedule 2 offence.[44] It was submitted that Joannou would be undeterred from further offending despite being on bail, as he was previously charged and convicted for similar offending and was subject to a community correction order at the time of the alleged offending the subject of the current charges against him. This was said to be indicative of Joannou's low regard for court orders and the importance of complying with conditions of bail.

(2) Otherwise endangering the safety or welfare of any other person.[45] Aside from inviting the court to take judicial notice of the prevalence of drugs of dependence in the community and the devastating, harmful effect such drugs are having, it was also submitted that there is specific evidence of strong demand in the community for the drugs allegedly supplied by Joannou in particular. This, combined with Joannou's allegedly extensive connections and networks, as well as Joannou's alleged access to firearms, was submitted to be demonstrative of the risk posed by Joannou to the community's welfare generally if granted bail.

(3) Interfering with a witness or otherwise obstructing the course of justice in any matter.[46] It was submitted that police are concerned that Joannou will interfere with witnesses and, in particular, that Joannou likely holds resentment toward the Fire Co-Accused due to that co-accused allegedly naming Joannou as his supplier of drugs. This submission was supported by an allegation that Joannou had enquired with police into the Fire Co-Accused's current location, and that it can be inferred from the available materials that Joannou has criminal associates who may assist him to either interfere with a witness or otherwise obstruct the course of justice.

(4) Failing to surrender into custody in accordance with conditions of bail.[47] While it was accepted that Joannou has ties to the community in Victoria, it was submitted that Joannou poses an unacceptable flight risk, and that given the opportunity he will leave Victoria and fail to return to answer the current charges. This risk was said to be increased, to the point of outweighing the ties Joannou has to this State, by the possibility of a significant custodial penalty being the outcome of conviction on the current charges, with life in prison being the applicable maximum sentence Joannou is facing. It was further submitted that the charges are serious, and that in light of previous offending and the breach of the community correction order Joannou has demonstrated his inability to comply with court orders. The submission that Joannou poses a flight risk was supported by reference to the significant financial resources apparently at his disposal.

1. The prosecution did not accept the proposition that any risk posed by Joannou could be sufficiently mitigated by imposition of the conditions of bail proposed by Joannou, and specifically responded to certain conditions of bail proposed by Joannou as follows:

(1) The proposed bail residence. As noted above,[48] it was submitted that the proposed bail residence would not constitute a protective factor or mitigate any risk of Joannou reoffending.

(2) The use of mobile phones generally, and the prohibition on using encrypted applications. It was submitted that these conditions could be easily circumvented by Joannou and that it would be impossible to monitor his compliance with them. This submission was supported by the respondent's contention that Joannou deleted all encrypted messaging and social media applications prior to his arrest.

(3) The proposed curfew. It was submitted that a curfew would not ameliorate risk as it is alleged that Joannou previously trafficked drugs during the day and early evening.

1. The respondent did not propose any alternative or additional conditions that might be said to reduce any risk associated with a grant of bail to Joannou to an acceptable level, and submitted that no conditions could sufficiently mitigate the risk of Joannou absconding or committing a further serious offence.

1. There is no single factor that establishes exceptional circumstances in this case. However, when a number of matters are considered in the context of the surrounding circumstances, Joannou has discharged the onus of satisfying the court exceptional circumstances exist.
2. First, while there must be a general reticence of drawing firm conclusions about the strength of the prosecution case on a bail application only a relatively short period after an accused has been charged, on the evidence it would appear that the prosecution case that Joannou trafficked cocaine in the quantity not less than a large commercial quality is a weak one, if not extremely weak. In short, the amount of cocaine seized falls well below the quantity that must be found to have been trafficked before the offence may be proved. Further, the circumstantial evidence relied upon to assert the trafficking of 823 grams of cocaine at the level of purity required is tenuous at best.[49]
3. Although no formal concession was made, implicitly the prosecution accepted it faced a difficult task in proving this offence when it submitted that it had a "relatively strong" case on trafficking of cocaine in a "commercial quantity" rather than a "large commercial quantity".
4. Secondly, there are also triable issues on the case concerning trafficking cocaine in a quantity not less than a commercial quantity. There is no evidence to establish Joannou was actually in possession of any amount of cocaine. Further, reliance upon the handle "Strongman" may present some difficulties. Although the case appears to be strong with respect to 2 occasions on which this handle was allegedly used by Joannou, those 2 occasions are some 13 months apart. Suffice to say for present purposes, it is far from clear that the prosecution will be able to establish Joannou was the exclusive user of this handle in messages that were allegedly sent. Furthermore, even if it were established that Joannou was the sender of the relevant messages, there are likely to be serious triable issues about what substance was in fact the subject of any trafficking.
5. Thirdly, the evidence of the alleged "lavish" lifestyle of Joannou is not straightforward. While it was accepted that an amount of approximately $182,000 in cash was not able to be explained satisfactorily, it was noted that the 2 luxury watches said to be found at Joannou's residence were not seized, which raises questions about whether the watches were genuine articles. Further, although Joannou had purchased a car for an amount of $88,000, it was noted that the purchase was in part paid for by a trade-in for which he received in excess of $30,000.
6. Fourthly, although it was not disputed that there were traces of cocaine on the press plate found at his residence, this evidence does not establish any particular quantity was the subject of any trafficking.
7. Fifthly, Joannou has a limited criminal history and this is his first time in custody.
8. Sixthly, Joannou has experienced issues with substance abuse for many years, including up until the time he was arrested. He has now agreed to address those issues and has been assessed as being suitable for an outpatient program. He is also willing to subject himself to drug screening on a regular basis such that, if he were to use an illicit substance, it would be highly likely to be readily detected. Further, Joannou is still a young man. This will present him with a real opportunity to rehabilitate and to demonstrate improvement on an ongoing basis.
9. Seventhly, Joannou has stable accommodation, ongoing employment, and family support from both his wife and his mother-in-law.
10. Eighthly, Joannou's personal circumstances include the fact that he has both a young child and a heavily pregnant wife to care for. Whatever may have been his position before his arrest, he is now fully aware of the fact that any breach of his bail conditions would mean that he will be deprived of living with his young family for an extended period of time.
11. Ninthly, there is no evidence of any victim opposing the grant of bail.
12. Tenthly, Joannou is already the subject of a community correction order and may suffer further consequences with respect to the conviction giving rise to that order in the event that he were to breach his conditions of bail.
13. Eleventhly, there have been significant bail guarantees offered. Although the amount his mother-in-law has offered is relatively modest compared with the amount of money seized at Joannou's residence, it represents her entire available savings. Equally, the bail guarantee of $100,000 offered by Stefanovic represents his available resources. As to the acceptability of this, Stefanovic volunteered his criminal history at the time he stated his willingness to act as a surety, and was entirely candid in his disclosure. Stefanovic was a forthright witness who plainly understood the significance of providing a bail guarantee and the importance of Joannou complying with his conditions of bail if it were granted. In light of the time that has lapsed since his offending, the relatively minor nature of his convictions, his close relationship with Joannou and Joannou's wife, his stable employment, his established business and the financial resources that come with both his employment and business, he is a suitable guarantor.
14. Twelfthly, there is no dispute that there will be considerable delay before any trial commences. Whether a trial is more likely to occur in early 2028 (the prosecution's position) or mid 2028 (as suggested by Joannou's counsel) is of little moment; on any view, if bail is not granted, Joannou will spend a lengthy period of time in custody at a time when he has a young family that needs to be supported. Although there is some support available to Joannou's wife beyond that that may be provided by Joannou, it would clearly be inadequate both financially and otherwise. Despite the fact that this delay cannot be described as exceptional (given the extensive delays that the criminal justice system presently experiences), delay is still a significant factor in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist.
15. The weight of this factor is increased by the issues that have been raised with respect to the strength of the prosecution's case concerning the more serious charges. There is a real prospect that Joannou will spend more time in custody on remand than any sentence that may be imposed if he is not found guilty of the more serious charges (which appears highly likely in relation to the most serious charge if it is maintained).
16. When these matters are considered in combination, and in the context of the surrounding circumstances more generally, the court is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist.

1. With the imposition of the strict conditions that Joannou has agreed to, and taking into account the surrounding circumstances, including the matters set out above, the court is not satisfied that Joannou poses an unacceptable risk of the type referred to in section 4E of the Bail Act if bail is granted subject to those conditions proposed.
2. Joannou has suffered from long-term drug addiction. However, the unchallenged position is that he has been abstinent while he has been in custody. The conditions of bail require Joannou to be tested on a regular basis, as well as requiring additional testing to be conducted randomly, and in such a manner that if he were to re-engage in substance abuse it would be highly likely that it would be readily detected. There can be little doubt that his lifestyle in more recent years was, at least in part, directly the product of his addiction and the need to be able to access certain substances.
3. The likelihood of Joannou complying with conditions of bail is supported by his history of compliance in the past.
4. Further, Joannou is at a critical point in his life. The serious consequences that will follow if he were to breach the conditions of bail increase the prospect of him again complying with his bail conditions. These consequences not only concern his inability to be with and support his young family for a considerable period of time, but include other significant adverse effects to him (including because he will also be in breach of his community correction order) and others close to him.
5. Obviously, issues concerning firearms in the community give rise to serious concerns about community safety. Although the prosecution referred to this issue in its written submissions, when addressing unacceptable risk no oral submissions were made in this regard. Perhaps this is reflective of the fact that there is no evidence of Joannou ever having a firearm in his possession.
6. Equally, there can be no question that trafficking substances such as cocaine and methamphetamine undermines the safety of our community in a myriad of ways. However, I am satisfied that the circumstances of this case, including the conditions of bail, reduce the risk of this occurring, whether at Joannou's behest or with his involvement, to an acceptable level. In addition to the constant drug testing, Joannou will be the subject of an extensive daily curfew and will be required to report to police every day. This considerable restriction on his movements coupled with any non-compliance being readily detectable are significant factors in reducing the risk Joannou would otherwise pose.
7. The level of support that Joannou will receive is also of significance. In his role as "the older brother", Stefanovic has undertaken to have direct involvement in the care and supervision of both Joannou and his family. He already visits Joannou's family home frequently to support Joannou's wife, and has given evidence that he will continue to do so on a regular basis. In circumstances where a bail guarantee of his life savings has been offered by Stefanovic, he is strongly incentivised to ensure Joannou's compliance. Equally, Joannou is fully aware of the potentially dire consequences for Stefanovic if he were to breach bail.
8. In summary, when the relevant matters are considered, including the conditions of bail that will be ordered and the surrounding circumstances more generally, the court cannot be satisfied that the risk posed by Joannou is unacceptable.

1. For the reasons stated, Joannou has established exceptional circumstances. Further, the prosecution has not established there is an unacceptable risk that Joannou would, if released on bail, endanger the safety or welfare of persons in the community by committing an offence that has that effect or by any other means. Accordingly, bail must be granted.
2. Bail will be granted substantially in the form of the conditions set out above.[50]
3. The circumstances warrant close attention. The matter will be returned before me in the new year for bail monitoring.

[1] Naturally, it was not suggested any admissions made by the Fire Co-Accused would be admissible against Joannou.

[2] The court was informed that this was the authentic passport of a friend and there was no suggestion it might be used by Joannou to flee the jurisdiction.

[3] There was some second-hand hearsay evidence of disengagement, but it was of no probative value and is afforded no weight.

[4] 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).

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

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

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

[8] Bail Act, sch 1, item 6(a), (b).

[9] Ibid, s 4AA(1).

[10] Ibid, s 4A(1A).

[11] See, for example, Re Brown [2019] VSC 751, [65] (Lasry J), and the cases there cited.

[13] Bail Act, s 4D(a).

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

[15] Ibid, s 4E(1).

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

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

[18] Ibid, ss 4A(3), 4E(3)(a).

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

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

[21] Schedule 11, Part 3 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act.

[22] This is on the assumption that the 123 grams allegedly seized is close to 100 percent pure and the remaining 700 grams is approximately 91 percent pure.

[23] See par 12(3) above. It was submitted on Joannou's behalf that there is no direct evidence of what, if anything, Joannou supplied to the Fire Co-Accused on that occasion.

[24] See pars 16-17 above.

[25] See par 52(1)(a) above.

[26] In the event that a term of imprisonment were imposed, it was submitted that it would be open for a court to impose a community correction order as a component of the sentence: see s 44 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).

[28] The actual audio of the intercepted phone calls will be provided as part of the hand up brief.

[29] He also had other funds, but these were required for cashflow for his business.

[30] See Bail Act.

[31] Including as summarised above: see in particular pars 10-13, 15-17, 21 and 25.

[32] See par 52(1)(b) above.

[33] See pars 25 and 52(1)(d) above.

[34] By way of broad indication, the car was said to be valued at a little over approximately twice Joannou's annual declared income, and each watch was said to be valued at approximately 3 quarters of that annual declared income. Reference was also made to Joannou and his family taking luxury holidays, and keeping large sums of cash in bundles at their residence.

[35] Re El-Refei [2020] VSC 65, [36] (Incerti J); Re AM [2020] VSC 569, [57] (Tinney J).

[36] Formica & Forni v Victoria Police [2020] VSC 719, [68] (Hollingworth J).

[38] Re Margus (Bail) [2025] VSC 68, [25] (Gorton J); Re Desic [2022] VSC 537, [59] (Lasry J).

[39] Re Margus (Bail) [2025] VSC 68, [27] (Gorton J).

[40] Bail Act, s 9(2)(b). See par 53(2) above.

[41] Re Nguyen [2025] VSC 179, [20] (Gorton J).

[42] See Re Desic [2022] VSC 537.

[43] See par 36 above.

[44] Bail Act, s 4E(1)(a)(iaa).

[45] Ibid, s 4E(1)(a)(i).

[46] Ibid, s 4E(1)(a)(iii).

[47] Ibid, s 4E(1)(a)(iv).

[49] See fn 22 above.

[50] See par 56 above.