Re Singh [2025] VSC 804 (16 December 2025)

2 Armed robbery is an offence contained within Schedule 1 to the Bail Act 1977 ('the Act'), meaning that the exceptional circumstances test pursuant to s 4AA of the Act was enlivened. Furthermore, at the time of the alleged commission of these offences, the applicant was subject to a community correction order ('CCO') for a range of offences. For that reason, aside from the charge of armed robbery, the exceptional circumstances test would have applied in any event.

3 Having heard the application, I indicated that I was not satisfied the burden of proving exceptional circumstances had been discharged. I further indicted that even had I been so satisfied, I would have been satisfied that the applicant posed an unacceptable risk of one or more of the eventualities asserted by the respondent. I therefore refused the application for bail. I indicated at the time that I would provide detailed reasons for my decision at a future time. What follows are my reasons.

4 The applicant was arrested and charged with these matters on 3 July 2025. On 13 August 2025, an application for bail by the applicant was withdrawn and marked struck out in the Melbourne Magistrates' Court. Subsequently, an application for bail in the Melbourne Magistrates' Court was refused on 29 October 2025, on the basis that the applicant had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. At the time of his arrest, the applicant was subject to a summons regarding the use of a false document, charged by informant First Constable Ryland Head on 10 February 2023.

5 There is one co-accused named Amanpreet Natt. He successfully applied for bail on 4 July 2025.

6 The applicant also faces an outstanding charge of contravening a CCO.

7 The current allegations against the applicant are set out in detail in the police summary forming Appendix 1 to the Informant's Report of Detective Senior Constable Grace Fryer exhibited to the affidavit in response to an application for bail.

8 On the evening of 9 June 2025, a suspicious white Hyundai Kona was reported parked in Mickleham with a false number plate. At 1:18am on 10 June 2025, Senior Constable Dario Di Napoli and Constable Luke Athaide attended the reported vehicle, located at the corner of Sepal Drive and Honeydew Street, Mickleham. They confirmed the correct registration of the vehicle via its VIN, though noted it had not yet been listed as stolen. Later on that same day, a local resident Nicole Bradshaw ('Bradshaw') called triple zero to report the white Hyundai as having been left on the street and likely stolen, also noting it was unlocked and the ignition appeared tampered with.

9 At 8:50pm on 10 June 2025, another resident, Ashely Dalli ('Dalli'), observed a red Peugeot pull up beside the Hyundai. The applicant exited the Peugeot and entered the Hyundai, while the co-accused remained nearby. Dalli and Bradshaw saw the applicant and the co-accused inspecting the Hyundai's engine bay. When Bradshaw attempted to photograph them, the applicant forcibly snatched her phone. Dalli intervened, at which point the co-accused armed himself with a golf club and assaulted Dalli, placing him in a headlock which had the effect of restricting his breathing.

10 During the struggle, the applicant produced a knife and stabbed Dalli three times in the back, hip, and thigh while the co-accused restrained him. Dalli eventually broke free and attempted to defend himself with the golf club as the applicant continued to pursue him.

11 The confrontation ended when the applicant and the co-accused returned to the Peugeot and fled the scene, still in possession of Bradshaw's phone. As they drove away, the co-accused allegedly attempted to strike Dalli with the vehicle.

12 Emergency services were called, and Dalli was found with serious stab wounds, and was transported by ambulance to the Royal Melbourne Hospital. An initial assessment of his injuries revealed a three centimetre wide paraspinal wound[1] on the left side of his back, a small superficial puncture wound on his left thigh, and a superficial crescent-shaped incised wound about five centimetres long on the left side of his abdomen. He underwent a CT scan which revealed a mild bibasal dependent atelectasis,[2] internal bleeding into the space surrounding the paraspinal wound, and active bleeding within the muscles surrounding the spine. He received stitches to close the paraspinal wound, and remained in hospital being treated for three days.

13 The police summary sets out the progression of the police investigation into the above offending, and the circumstances of the other charges faced by the applicant.

14 The applicant was born on 16 May 1996 and was raised in Punjab, India. He moved to Australia briefly in 2006, before returning to India. He then moved to Australia again in 2013 and has since resided here. He maintains a close relationship with his mother, a teacher. His father, a former police officer and engineer, died in 2010 after a period of substance abuse and unemployment, and the family's finances declined thereafter. He has one sister, though they are now distant, and previously had a strong bond with his grandmother, who died shortly after his father.

15 The applicant completed years 11 and 12 at Western Senior Secondary College, with some difficulty due to his lack of proficiency in English. After completing a Certificate IV in automotive studies, he enrolled at Victoria University and completed two and a half years of a mechanical engineering degree before leaving and purchasing a truck and starting his own transport company. That business started to deteriorate after the breakdown of his marriage.

16 The applicant has had two prior relationships, one ending in 2022 and another in 2024 following his partner's death, which affected his mental health. At the time of the affidavit in support, he was said to be in a stable relationship of 12 months with Lisa Wilkins, a security guard with no criminal history. Ms Wilkins was put forward at the time as being available as a bail guarantor to the extent of $10,000, and as someone providing strong family support to the applicant.

17 The applicant commenced using illicit substances in 2021, and started to smoke MA regularly the following year. His usage increased, culminating in his arrest and remand in custody for some matters in 2024 for which he was eventually sentenced on 17 February 2024. Upon his release from custody, he relapsed into drug use prior to being arrested on the current matters.

18 The applicant's criminal history, although limited to the single appearance at Sunshine Magistrates' Court mentioned above, is nonetheless significant. On the day of this appearance, he was dealt with on charges of possessing a loaded firearm in a public place, being a prohibited person possessing an imitation firearm, possessing MA and cannabis, theft of a motor vehicle (2 charges), failing to answer bail (2 charges), dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime, and possessing cartridge ammunition without a permit. He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, to be followed by a CCO for 18 months. He was required under the order to be supervised, and to undergo assessment and treatment for drug abuse as directed, and mental health assessment and treatment as directed.

19 A declaration was made in respect of 162 days of pre-sentence detention. The material before the Court indicated that the applicant was released into the community on 7 March 2025.

20 Proceedings were commenced against the applicant for contravention of the CCO, as indicated in the contravention report of Tammy Farley, Coolaroo Community Correctional Services dated 28 July 2025.[3] In summary, the compliance of the applicant with the conditions of his CCO was unsatisfactory, in spite of warnings given to him to improve his performance. He failed to attend supervision appointments on numerous occasions, attended only 4 of 15 appointments for the Kickstart G42 program, designed to provide treatment for his drug addiction, before being withdrawn due to his lack of engagement, and was also withdrawn from the Caraniche program for the same reason. He also failed to attend a men's behaviour change program, and two mental health assessments which he was directed to attend. The report recommended that the applicant's CCO be cancelled and that he be resentenced on the original charges. As indicated earlier, break proceedings have been initiated.

21 In setting out the guiding principles of the Act, s 1B relevantly provides:

(1AA) The Parliament recognises the overarching importance of maximising, to the greatest extent possible, the safety of the community and persons affected by crime.

(1) The Parliament also recognises the importance of -

(b) taking account of the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty; and

(c) promoting fairness, transparency and consistency in bail decision making; and

(d) promoting public understanding of bail practices and procedures.

22 It is the intention of the legislature that the Act be applied and interpreted having regard to the matters set out above.[4]

23 The phrase 'exceptional circumstances' is not defined in the Act, but its meaning has been considered in many decisions of this Court. Kaye J (as he then was) in DPP v Muhaidat[5] stated the relevant principle as follows:

Effectively, the applicant has to establish circumstances right out of the ordinary. They have to be exceptional to the ordinary circumstances which would otherwise entitle the applicant to bail. Ordinary circumstances consist of circumstances such as hardship to the accused or to his family, disruption of his work and similar matters.[6]

24 It is plain from the cases that the threshold of exceptional circumstances is high, but not impossible to reach. It may be established by a combination of circumstances which may, by themselves, not be considered exceptional.[7]

25 Of central importance in the application was the positive assessment of the applicant as to his suitability for a place in The Cottage, an inhouse drug rehabilitation and treatment centre in Shepparton. Detailed written material was placed before the Court, including the assessment by Timothy Ridgway, in which the author described the applicant's presentation as demonstrating

motivation, insight and a genuine willingness to engage in treatment. He has maintained abstinence from illicit substances while in custody, is stabilised on prescribed pharmacotherapy, and has supportive family and community connections.

26 Prior to the application for bail in the Magistrates' Court, the Office of Public Prosecutions indicated to the applicant's solicitors that the prosecution would withdraw the charge of armed robbery in return for the applicant pleading guilty to theft and common law assault, along with the other charges, including the charge of ICI. The case is currently listed for a directions hearing in the County Court on 16 December 2025, and indications are that the matter will likely proceed as a sentence indication hearing on 17 March 2026.

27 The applicant relied substantially upon the affidavit in support sworn by Mr Magazis. The respondent relied upon the informant's report, in which the informant outlined her challenge to some of the applicant's material, and her concerns about the risk posed by the applicant. She also provided information about the monitoring of some of the prison telephone calls of the applicant, in which the applicant, amongst other things:

• allegedly indicated to Ms Wilkins and others his intention to continue using MA in the future;

• encouraged Ms Wilkins to 'just lie a bit' when she gave evidence in the Magistrates' Court bail application;

• indicated that he intended to leave Victoria, or Australia, if released on bail;

• made a number of statements seemingly admitting his involvement in the offending alleged against him.

28 The informant gave evidence on affirmation before me. Through her, the CCTV footage showing the offending was played to the Court. She identified the people visible in the footage, and indicated the point at which the applicant allegedly stabbed Dalli. She outlined concerns she held as to the suitability of the applicant's proposed bail guarantor, his uncle Mr Deol. She indicated her concern that if bailed to The Cottage, the applicant would continue to offend there, as he had done in prison by purchasing drugs. Also, she noted that the applicant is on a bridging visa pending the outcome of an application for a partner visa. He is no longer with the person who sponsored him, and has no other ties in the jurisdiction. The informant also told the Court that both complainants are opposed to the release of the applicant on bail.

29 Matthew Moravan, a senior support worker at The Cottage, gave sworn evidence before the Court concerning the assessment of the applicant as being suitable for a place at The Cottage. He indicated in cross-examination that he was unaware of the applicant having used substances in prison. He said that were that the case, it would raise concerns, but would not be an uncommon event. As for the statements made by the applicant indicating his reluctance to stop using drugs, many people commence at The Cottage with that attitude, which may change later. He indicated what steps would be taken should the applicant be found with illicit substances in The Cottage. He was not aware of the negative CCO report. Any refusal or failure by the applicant to engage in the program at The Cottage would result in him being breached.

30 At the outset of his oral submissions before me, Mr Sheales indicated that he relied upon the combination of circumstances set out in the affidavit in support of Mr Magazis at [46] in seeking to prove exceptional circumstances and resisting the prosecution contention as to unacceptable risk. He submitted, however, that the availability of a place for treatment of the applicant's drug dependency at The Cottage was 'well and truly first amongst equals in relation to what's relied upon',[8] later describing it as the 'central matter'[9] in the application.

31 Whilst not taking issue with the truthfulness of the statements made by the applicant in the prison telephone calls as to his intended future drug use, Mr Sheales pointed out the timing of those calls, not long after the applicant had gone into custody, when he was at his most vulnerable, and the further period which had elapsed by the time he was found suitable in the assessment by Mr Ridgway. He submitted that notwithstanding the applicant's comments, and his poor performance on the CCO, the strict conditions the Court could impose on bail, the strictness of the regimen at The Cottage, and the applicant's clear understanding of what would befall him should he fail to comply with bail conditions, would mean that he may be capable of properly accepting drug counselling and treatment. That outcome would be very much in the community interests, submitted Mr Sheales. Should the applicant be able to receive proper treatment for his drug addiction, and comply with the requirements of The Cottage program, his prospects of reoffending would be greatly reduced.

32 In the course of his submissions, Mr Sheales reminded me of the difficulties faced by people seeking to rid themselves of drug addiction. No progress could be made in the absence of a firm decision to cease drug use, and Mr Sheales submitted that the applicant has indicated that he has reached that point. As Mr Sheales put it on a number of occasions, 'the proof is in the pudding'.

33 Mr Sheales emphasised the fact that this matter has effectively settled. The applicant would plead guilty to the charges of theft and assault which the prosecution would accept in lieu of the armed robbery charge, along with the other remaining charges including the charge of ICI. Even if the sentence indication ends up not being a favourable one, Mr Sheales suggested that the matter would be 'overwhelmingly likely to settle',[10] and resolve into a plea of guilty.

34 In those circumstances, the sentence he may receive for the charges, which Mr Sheales acknowledged would likely involve a head sentence and a non-parole period, may, at least insofar as the minimum term was concerned, be close to the period of time spent on remand by the time of the sentence indication hearing.

35 Mr Sheales accepted that the charge of ICI would be towards the serious end of the spectrum, but submitted that the charge of armed robbery would be at the low end. In respect of the armed robbery charge, the prosecution case was weak. He conceded that the case on all other charges was very strong.

36 Although the applicant's girlfriend was no longer able to put up a bail guarantee, and was not present in Court, being overseas at the time, Mr Sheales submitted that she continued to support him.

37 In respect of risk, Mr Sheales indicated that the applicant wants to remain in Australia. He also posited that strict conditions could be put in place to minimise the risk he posed of reoffending or failing to answer his bail.

38 Mr Weinman, for the respondent, relied largely upon his written outline, supplemented by brief oral submissions, in arguing that the applicant had fallen well short of proving exceptional circumstances, and in the alternative, that there was an unacceptable risk of the applicant endangering the safety of the community, interfering with witnesses or otherwise obstructing the course of justice, or failing to surrender into custody in accordance with his bail.

39 He emphasised the importance of maximising community safety, as set out in s 1B(1AA) of the Act.

40 In respect of the seriousness of the alleged offending, the armed robbery charge is serious. Whilst a resolution may not include that charge, the applicant would still face the other charges, including the charge of ICI. That charge involved the use of a knife to stab the victim three time, leading to serious consequences for the victim. This was a serious example of the offence. In addition, the property offences involved numerous stolen vehicles, and many other dishonesty offences.

41 Whilst Mr Weinman acknowledged there would be triable issues in respect of the armed robbery charge, the case against the applicant on the other charges is strong.

42 The applicant's criminal history, whilst short, is significant. The applicant was convicted of charges involving the carrying of a loaded firearm in a public place and other weapons charges involving knives. He was released onto the CCO after spending six months in custody, and within three months, engaged in the current offending, which involved the use of a knife in a public location to cause injury to another. That conduct went directly to the question of community safety. Mr Weinman made particular mention of a statement in the report of Warren Simmons at [25] as to the applicant's habit of keeping a knife on his person for protection, in the context of his paranoid thinking.

43 Whilst there was no lengthy adverse bail history, the applicant does have two convictions for failing to answer bail. Furthermore, the fact that he was subject to a CCO at the time of the current offending is of great significance in respect of the question of risk.

44 The applicant is the respondent to a final family violence intervention order ('FVIO') in relation to his former partner.

45 Mr Weinman conceded the relevance, in both steps of the 2-step bail process, of the availability to the applicant of drug treatment at The Cottage, but submitted that I should hesitate to accept the genuineness of the applicant's intention to engage in the program, having regard to the statements he has made in custody, and his poor performance on the CCO.

46 In respect of the time the applicant would spend on remand leading up to the sentence indication hearing, Mr Weinman submitted that this would not exceed the likely sentence he would receive.

47 Mr Weinman relied, also, on the attitude of the victims to a possible grant of bail, as being a relevant matter for consideration.

48 As to the question of risk, Mr Weinman relied on the fact that the offending involved the use of a knife, the status of the applicant being on a CCO at the time, for offending which also involved knives and other weapons, his prior convictions for failing to answer bail, the statements made by the applicant in custody urging his partner to lie on his behalf and indicating an intention to leave the jurisdiction, and the knowledge the applicant would have as to the likelihood of his receiving a further term of imprisonment.

49 Mr Weinman submitted that even the imposition of strict conditions would not mitigate the risk posed by the applicant to an acceptable level.

50 This application, which, it must be noted, could only be viewed from the defence perspective as a very difficult one, was put by Mr Sheales principally on the basis of the availability to the applicant of a place in a residential drug rehabilitation facility, The Cottage, in Shepparton. This was in order to give the applicant a chance to deal with the addiction to MA which is said to be at the heart of the offending alleged here, and his previous offending.

51 Mr Sheales relied on other matters set out in the affidavit of Mr Magazis in support of bail, but it would be correct to say that the availability of a place, and treatment, at the Cottage, was at the very heart of the application. In the circumstances, it is unnecessary for me to set out these other matters, but I took them into account.

52 Unfortunately, there were some aspects of the evidence which raised real doubts in my mind as to the genuineness of the applicant's professed desire to do something about his drug addiction. These included the very poor response by the applicant to the CCO he received on 17 February 2025 for serious offending, including his apparent unwillingness to avail himself of the drug treatment opportunities provided to him, and statements made by him in prison telephone calls indicating his continuing use of ice, and intention to continue to use in future. When the applicant was assessed as to his suitability for a place at The Cottage on 3 October 2025 by Timothy Ridgway, the assessor accepted at face value what he was told by the applicant, which caused him to reach the view that the applicant demonstrated 'motivation, insight, and a genuine willingness to engage in treatment'. I am by no means confident that, had Mr Ridgway known the true facts surrounding the applicant, he would so readily have considered the applicant to be a suitable candidate for inhouse drug treatment.

53 There is no question that the applicant is going to need to deal with and defeat his drug addiction if he is to have any chance of leading a happy and productive life. However, for that to be possible, he will need to reach the point of accepting that he has a problem, and be willing to do all that he can to deal with it. At the time of the application, I was not satisfied that he had reached that point. Indeed, it struck me as being a bit unrealistic to think that there was much prospect of his having success at a program such as The Cottage should he be released on bail to live there.

54 This is a case in which there was admitted to be very strong evidence that the applicant is guilty of the charges other than the armed robbery. The ICI charge is a serious one, because he repeatedly stabbed a man, who was doing nothing more than seeking to assist a woman whose mobile phone had been snatched by the applicant. The injured man received a significant stab wound to the paraspinal area, causing the partial deflation of his lungs, and a three day stay in hospital. This was a dangerous attack, carrying with it the real risk of catastrophic consequences. Further, the attack was carried out by the accused only three months after he was released from a taste of three months of imprisonment, onto a CCO with which, from the very start, the applicant made no effort at all to comply.

55 Even accepting the defence contention as to the weakness of the prosecution case on the armed robbery, and accepting the likelihood of this matter settling for lesser charges, but including the other charges including ICI, the offending which remained was serious, particularly the charge of ICI, and would undoubtedly attract a term of imprisonment. I thought it very unlikely that the time the applicant would spend on remand would exceed that term.

56 Despite the best efforts of Mr Sheales in this difficult application, the material fell well short of proving the existence of exceptional circumstances. In my view, the written and oral submissions of Mr Weinman demonstrated that fact. The burden of proving exceptional circumstances not having been discharged, a refusal of the application would follow.

57 For completeness, I further indicated that even had I considered the onus to prove exceptional circumstances had been discharged, I would have been satisfied that the applicant would pose an unacceptable risk of the endangering the public or failing to answer his bail if a grant of bail was made.

58 For the above reasons, the application for bail was refused.

[2] Mild lung collapse in the lower region of the lung.

[3] Exhibit TM-6 to the affidavit in support.

[5] [2004] VSC 17.

[6] Ibid [13]-[14] as cited in Re Reker [2019] VSC 81 [39] (Beale J); see also Re Sipser [2019] VSC 362 [43] (Beach JA).

[7] See, for example, Re Brown [2019] VSC 751 (Lasry J).