Re Tresize [2025] VSC 413 (9 July 2025)

1 The applicant applied for bail in respect of 60 charges,[1] for which he had been remanded since 21 January 2025. [2] A previous application for bail was refused in the Melbourne Magistrate's Court on 26 May 2025 by Magistrate Sonnett. The charges for which the applicant sought bail included charges of theft (x23), burglary (x7), handling stolen goods (x2), obtaining property by deception (x10), negligently dealing with proceeds of crime (x3), unlawful assault and assault with a weapon. Most of the theft charges concerned numerous occasions on which it was alleged that the applicant had stolen bottles of whisky or other spirits from bottle shops including Dan Murphy's and BWS. The burglary charges generally concerned unlawful entry into bottle shops or other commercial premises. However, of particular relevance to this application and the question of assessment of risk were two armed robbery charges. The applicant also applied for bail on charges of possessing a controlled weapon (x2), criminal damage (x2), committing an indictable offence whilst on bail (x2), possessing cannabis, making a threat to inflict serious injury, failing to answer bail, and contravening a community correction order ('CCO'). [3]

2 The applicant is a Yorta Yorta and Gunditjmara man, who, at the time of the application, was recovering from physical injuries following a recent assault, was homeless, and had drug and alcohol dependence issues. I will turn to his personal circumstances in more detail at [21] below.

3 The parties agreed that the correct test for this bail application was the show compelling reason test,[4] because the applicant is alleged to have committed a Schedule 2 offence, namely armed robbery,[5] thereby enlivening Bail Act 1977 ('The Act') s 4AA(3). The applicant asserted that a compelling reason was made out, and the respondent conceded that it would be open to the Court to be satisfied of the existence of a compelling reason, as was found by Magistrate Sonnet in the previous bail application on these charges. However, the respondent opposed the application for bail on the basis that the applicant posed an unacceptable risk of committing a Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 offence whilst on bail,[6] otherwise endangering the safety or welfare of another person, whether by committing an offence that has that effect or by any other means,[7] and/or failing to surrender into custody in accordance with the conditions of bail. [8]

4 After hearing the application, I adjourned the matter to the afternoon of 24 June to deliver my judgment. On 24 June 2025, I refused bail on the basis of unacceptable risk. What follows are my reasons for that decision.

5 The charges for which bail was sought arose from numerous instances of alleged criminality carried out on 33 separate days between 12 August 2020 and 17 January 2025. A detailed chronology of the alleged offending was set out in Table A in the affidavit in response.

6 The focus of the application was on two charges of armed robbery, for alleged offending on 13 and 19 December 2024. The two alleged armed robberies occurred in the context of repeated occasions on which the applicant allegedly attended inside Dan Murphy's and BWS stores in a number of suburbs, removing alcohol from the shelves and then leaving without making payment.

7 By 13 December 2024, the applicant was already quite well known to staff at the Dan Murphy's store on Lygon Street, Brunswick East, for carrying out thefts of alcohol from the store. It is alleged that he carried out thefts from that store on 30 November[9] and 4, 7, 9 and 12 December 2024, always following the same modus operandi. He would walk quickly into the store carrying a bag of some description, proceed straight to the rear of the store where the bottles of whisky were displayed, remove numerous bottles which he would place in his bag, and then walk quickly out of the store, making no attempt to pay for the alcohol.

8 On 13 December 2024, at about 7.10 pm, the applicant walked into the store and proceeded down an aisle to the rear of the store, where he loaded a large number of bottles of whisky into a zip-up shopping bag which he was carrying. He was noticed by a security guard, Taranbir Singh ('Singh'), who attracted the attention of a customer service worker, Marcus Lyon ('Lyon'). Both men proceeded to a position in the aisle along which the applicant then walked back towards the front of the store, and sought to block his path. As he walked quickly towards the two men, the applicant reached into his pocket, and pulled what looked to Lyon like a Stanley knife half-way out of the pocket. While looking at Lyon, the applicant allegedly stated, 'Get out of the fucking way'. Lyon and Singh moved aside, allowing the applicant to walk past. He quickly exited the store without paying for the bottles, shouting out while he did so. Lyon indicated in his statement that he was really shaken by the incident and scared that the applicant would hurt him.

9 During the course of the police investigation which followed, Lyon was shown a photo folder containing photographs of ten individuals. He picked out a photograph of the applicant as looking like the offender.

10 CCTV footage obtained from Dan Murphy's East Brunswick depicts the alleged armed robbery. There was no dispute during the application that the person depicted taking the bottles from the store without paying was the applicant. It was in dispute that he produced a knife. The footage shows the applicant reaching into his pocket but does not clearly show a weapon.

11 On 19 December 2024, the applicant allegedly attended the Dan Murphy's store in Edsall Street, Malvern, at about 8.55 pm. As he entered the store, his appearance attracted the attention of store workers including Simranjit Singh ('S. Singh'), a security guard, and Claire Forbes ('Forbes') and Monique Chapman ('Chapman'), customer service workers. The applicant walked to the whisky area of the store and loaded a number of bottles of whisky into a zip-up Woolworths bag he was carrying. S. Singh approached the applicant and told him that if he wanted to purchase the items he needed to take them to the counter. The applicant started talking rudely and aggressively towards S. Singh and walked towards the exit to the store. As he walked through the exit past S. Singh and close to Forbes and Chapman, he held up a small knife which he pointed towards S. Singh and was heard by Forbes and Chapman to say to S. Singh, 'Don't make me use this'. S. Singh did not try to stop the applicant from leaving the store, as he was concerned that he may be stabbed.

12 The incident was captured on CCTV footage from the store. In the footage, the knife being held by the applicant towards S. Singh is clearly visible as the applicant walks out of the store.

13 Robert Bate, an employee of a company which provides security and protection services for Dan Murphy's and BWS throughout Victoria and Tasmania, reviewed the CCTV footage from the incident at the Malvern store. He recognised the male on the footage as being the applicant, and informed police of his identification.

14 Mr Bhattacharya, who appeared for the applicant, agreed with characterisation of the applicant's modus operandi as being to steal alcohol in order to sell it, in part, to sustain his heroin addiction.[10]

15 The other offences for which the applicant was charged will proceed summarily. However, several of these offences occurred in the short time before and after the alleged armed robbery offences, leading Mr Mallia for the respondent, to submit that the bulk of the charges, including the two armed robbery charges, arose from a crime 'spree'. [11]

16 Another incident alleged against the applicant is worthy of further mention ('the Aldi incident'). On 27 December 2021, the applicant, while on a grant of bail for a number of offences, allegedly attended the Aldi store in Johnston Street, Fitzroy, from which he had previously been banned. Upon entering, he loaded cosmetic items from a shelf and placed them into a Woolworths bag. The store manager observed him and attended in the aisle to speak to the applicant. After being confronted by the manager, the applicant became aggressive, stating, 'I will stab you....I will pull out a weapon and use it on you.' The manager backed away in fear. The applicant proceeded to the checkout and then walked through the checkout area and out of the store without paying. Upon leaving, he said to the manager, 'Come outside and I will show you what's in my pocket'. He produced an item from his pocket which the manager believed to be a knife, but which subsequent police review of the CCTV footage determined to be a cigarette lighter.

17 On 12 January 2024, the applicant was charged with offences of making a threat to inflict serious injury, theft and committing an indictable offence whilst on bail by Senior Constable Kullar in respect of the Aldi incident. The delay in charging was because the applicant could not be located. The applicant was remanded in custody on these matters, and bail was revoked on several other groups of charges laid by three further informants.

18 On 17 January 2024, the applicant received a deferral of sentence in the Neighbourhood Justice Centre ('NJC') in Collingwood. He was granted bail on the Kullar matters and the other charges in respect of which bail had earlier been revoked.

19 On 20 January 2025, the applicant was located by police in a high-rise apartment block in Collingwood after being seriously assaulted by an unknown person or persons. He was transported to Royal Melbourne Hospital ('RMH') for treatment to his injuries, which included multiple facial fractures and an L4 fracture. On 21 January 2025, he was remanded in custody. The applicant remained in police custody at RMH before being moved to St Augustine's inpatient custody ward at St Vincent's Hospital until 20 February 2025. He was then transferred to the hospital unit at Port Phillip Prison until 13 May 2025. For much of that overall period, the applicant was confined to a hospital bed. He still experiences pain and mobility issues as a result of his injuries.

20 On 26 May 2025, following an application for bail which was heard on 21 May 2025, bail was refused by Magistrate Sonnett. The refusal of bail related to charges laid by no fewer than ten individual informants. The written decision of his Honour was of great assistance to me.

21 The applicant is 43 years of age, having been born on 25 June 1982. He has had a sad and difficult life, although few details of this were placed before the Court. His father died when the applicant was 11. At the age of 13, he was introduced to heroin by an uncle, and he had developed an addiction by the time he was 15. That addiction has remained with him ever since. The applicant attended at the Odyssey House in-house residential rehabilitation program in 2010, but left after a few days. He has not engaged in any further attempts at rehabilitation since that time. In 2012, when the applicant was about 30, he was the driver of motor vehicle involved in a collision which led to the death of his wife. He suffered significant injuries, including to his head, requiring the insertion of a metallic plate. He suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder ('PTSD'), seizures and a suspected traumatic brain injury ('TBI'). The applicant has been homeless for many years, and in the months leading up to his eventual arrest in January 2025, he was homeless and moving around the inner suburbs of Melbourne.

22 The applicant has a very extensive history of criminal offending in Queensland, South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria. The Queensland convictions commenced in 1998 when he was 16. The record comprises a large number of convictions for offences of dishonesty, including burglary and theft, vagrancy and street offences, drug offences, driving offences, and a very large number of bail offences, including failing to answer bail and breaching conditions of bail. From about 2010, the applicant received a large number of sentences of imprisonment, typically for months, but in 2013, he received a sentence of 4 years 2 months with a minimum of 3 years 4 months for dangerous driving causing death in the District Court of South Australia. That conviction related to the 2012 motor vehicle collision which resulted in his wife's death, to which I have earlier referred.

23 The Victorian criminal history is quite confined, mainly between 2017 and 2020, but in that time, the applicant accrued further dishonesty convictions and three convictions for failing to answer bail. On 5 March 2020, the applicant was placed on a 12 month CCO for theft, handling, obtaining property by deception and failing to answer bail. A condition of the CCO required the applicant to attend the NJC in Collingwood and undergo assessment and treatment for drug dependency and mental health issues. Material before the Court did not reveal the compliance or otherwise of the applicant with that condition.

24 On 17 January 2024, as indicated earlier, a deferral of sentence took place before a magistrate in the NJC in Collingwood. The applicant was released on bail. He complied with the condition that required his attendance at the NJC on 18 January 2024, but did not attend the next required appointment, or at any time thereafter, until he was taken into custody as indicated above.

25 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.

26 It is the intention of the legislature that the Act be applied and interpreted having regard to the matters set out above.[12]

27 As indicated earlier, bail in this case was a 2-step process. The onus was on the applicant to prove the existence of a compelling reason. If satisfied of a compelling reason, I was obliged to determine whether the respondent had satisfied me the applicant posed a risk of one or more of the circumstances set out in s 4E of the Act, and that risk was unacceptable. In considering both steps, I was required to have regard to the 'surrounding circumstances,' defined non-exhaustively in s 3AAA.

28 In this case, because of the applicant's Aboriginality, which had been accepted by Magistrate Sonnett, and was accepted unreservedly by me, I was required by s 3A to take into account any issues which arose due to the applicant's Aboriginality, including the matters set out in detail in the provision.

29 Amongst other things, I had regard to the Cultural Support Plan prepared by Ms Traysy Kay, Director of Koori Policy and Planning at Court Services Victoria, which was provided to the Court. The report identified eight presenting needs of the applicant.

30 Another important aspect of this application was the proposed bail address. If bail was granted, it was proposed that the applicant would reside at Odyssey House, as part of the Therapeutic Community ('TC') Residential Rehabilitation Program. As noted above, the applicant had briefly resided at Odyssey House about 15 years ago, for a matter of days.

31 In brief oral evidence, Senior Constable Jack Goodchap, who is the informant in the Malvern armed robbery charge (among others), and gave evidence on behalf of all Victoria Police informants, confirmed that both armed robbery charges were proceeding to a committal hearing on 29 October this year. He opined that Odyssey House was not an appropriate bail address, because it is not a secure facility, meaning that the applicant could leave of his own volition. In such a case, the police would have no knowledge of a phone or residential address utilised by the applicant, or any other information which they could use to find him; and even if they were notified by Odyssey House that the applicant had left the TC, there would likely be a delay between when this occurred and receiving notification, in which time the applicant would have 'an opportunity to get on a train and disappear'.[13] He outlined the significant resources which had been devoted by the police to finding the applicant on a previous occasion when he had failed to answer bail, and that these efforts had been fruitless. He indicated that in the aftermath of the 19 December 2024 alleged armed robbery, a whole crew of the Stonnington CIU had been devoted to trying to locate the applicant. All possible avenues were explored without success. Ultimately the applicant was only discovered after he called 000 to seek medical assistance, following the assault which he suffered in January this year.

32 The informant's report of S/C Goodchap was exhibited to the affidavit in response. In the report, S/C Goodchap, in detailing police concerns about the risk of the applicant failing to appear, stated;

The applicant has failed to attend court on multiple occasions and was wanted on warrants and whereabouts multiple times between 2021 to January 2024 where he was arrested and bailed a few days prior and then failed to attend the very next hearing and was not able to be located until he was located seriously assaulted in January 2025.[14]

33 He expressed the view that if the applicant was granted bail and failed to appear, it would be highly unlikely that the police would be able to find him. In relation to the risk posed by the applicant to members of the public, he stated:

Police believe that the [applicant] poses a significant risk to members of the public. The [applicant] on multiple occasions during the current incidents produced knives against members of the public. In the outstanding incidents he has threatened serious injury against the victims.

The applicant's ongoing offending throughout the previous year shows that his behaviour is escalating, and it is only a matter of time that someone is seriously injured during one of these incidents. Police have no reason to believe any bail conditions imposed might mitigate this risk.[15]

34 During the hearing, I invited Mr Bhattacharya to address me both on compelling reason and unacceptable risk, but indicated that the main focus would be on the latter. He relied on a combination of matters in his written and oral submissions in proof of a compelling reason, and in resisting the prosecution argument as to unacceptable risk. These were:

(a) Availability of residential rehabilitation at Odyssey House. A letter from Odyssey House of 20 June 2025, indicated that a place was available to the applicant in Odyssey House's Therapeutic Community (TC) Residential Rehabilitation Program, if he was granted bail. In addition to confirming the existence of this spot in the program, the letter underlined the applicant's expressed desire to make a change in his life by breaking the pattern of substance abuse which he has lived with for 23 years. However, the letter cautioned that:

While residents are regularly accounted for, the TC is a voluntary program and residents are not under direct staff supervision. Mr Tresize's bail conditions need to reflect the structure of our program if he is to be admitted to the TC.... If Mr Tresize chooses to leave the program, or is discharged from the program for any reason, at any time; the informant/case manager relating to the current matters will be notified as soon as possible...[16]

Mr Bhattacharya emphasised the importance of the applicant having expressed a strong desire to break his current destructive pattern of substance use. He submitted it would be in the interests of the community for him to be able to rehabilitate himself. The question was not so much would Odyssey House stop him from leaving, but would he stop himself.

(b) The likely lengthy period of remand if bail was refused. It was submitted by Mr Bhattacharya that there would be unlikely to be a trial date before late 2026, or even early 2027. This would be a very lengthy period of remand for any person, and would contribute significantly to the establishment of a compelling reason, albeit that it was not submitted that time on remand would necessarily exceed the sentence imposed should the applicant be found guilty.

(c) The existence of an arguable defence on the charges of armed robbery. Mr Bhattacharya indicated that whilst the applicant might be observed to have something in his hand at the time of the alleged events, it would be disputed that this was a knife on either occasion.

(d) The relatively low level of the alleged armed robbery offences. It was submitted that the offending was 'the lowest end of armed robberies'.[17] The events were 'extremely momentary',[18] with no suggestion of the knife having been taken out and waved in the face of the victims.

(e) The applicant's Aboriginality and therefore the matters in s 3A. Reference was made to the statements of Incerti J in Re Terei[19] and Re Males.[20] Mr Bhattacharya relied upon the statement of Incerti J in the latter case to the effect that each stage of the bail process must be considered by referring to a central question: is there a good reason to contribute to the systemic overrepresentation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in custody? He submitted that in this case, in light of the applicant's long term drug problem, his willingness to try to do something about it, the availability of the Odyssey House program, and other circumstances, there was a good reason for bail to be granted.

(f) The applicant's very difficult personal circumstances.

(g) The applicant's difficulties in custody as a result of the injuries he suffered prior to remand.

35 In respect of unacceptable risk, Mr Bhattacharya refuted the respondent's assertion of unacceptable risk in relation to endangering the safety and welfare of another person, arguing that the bulk of the applicant's criminal history is for dishonesty and minor offences of public disorder, with no matters involving violence or weapons. The conviction for dangerous driving causing death was not relevant to the court's current assessment of risk. Mr Bhattacharya described the armed robbery charges as 'well out of character' for the applicant, [21] and submitted that whilst there is always some risk of future violence, the risk posed by the applicant in this case was not unacceptable 'given that he is just not the kind of person who habitually commits violent offences and commits offences using weapons'.[22] He submitted that it would represent a significant escalation for the applicant to use a knife to stab someone rather than use it in a threatening way.

36 In terms of the risk that the applicant will fail to surrender into custody, Mr Bhattacharya submitted that the applicant is unlikely to abscond from Odyssey House, because he has expressed a strong desire to go there and participate in the program, and because the facility has 'fairly strict conditions that go some way to mitigating risk'. [23] He confirmed that the applicant had been to Odyssey House once before in 2010, characterised that previous occasion as 'not a very successful attendance',[24] and stated that the applicant had not participated in any in-house drug treatment programs in the interceding years.

37 In response to a question from me about the risk that the applicant, if released on bail, would escalate his alleged offending by committing a further armed robbery and then, when confronted, use a weapon, Mr Bhattacharya submitted that that hypothetical scenario:

does rely on Mr Tresize using a weapon and using a weapon in a violent way, in an aggressive way, to commit an assault as opposed to what is effectively a threat... there is nothing on his record to suggest that he does do that...[25]

38 And he refuted the suggestion that the applicant was in the habit of carrying a knife, underlining that his possession of a knife on each of the two alleged armed robbery occasions was disputed, and that the applicant has been arrested multiple times, and never been found in possession of a weapon.

39 Mr Bhattacharya further submitted that the applicant's Aboriginality is relevant to the determination of unacceptable risk, in reliance on s 3A and the principles enunciated by Incerti J in Re Terei, including that s 3A considerations apply both to the assessment of exceptional circumstances or compelling reasons (where applicable), but also unacceptable risk, and that s 3A considerations are to be at the forefront of the bail decision maker's reasoning.

40 Mr Bhattacharya submitted that the bail test for an Aboriginal applicant is different, albeit not easier, than for a non-Aboriginal applicant; and that the question for the court is whether there is a good reason to contribute to the systemic over-representation of Aboriginal people in custody? Put in another way, the question, per Re Males, is whether the risk is so high that we are willing to accept the ongoing incarceration of another Aboriginal person, he submitted.

41 Mr Bhattacharya conceded that risks exist in this case, but submitted that they are not unacceptable, and urged the court to grant the applicant the opportunity to break the cycle of drug addiction and incarceration, through a grant of bail.

42 Mr Mallia, relying on his written and oral submissions, conceded that it would be open to the Court to find a compelling reason, but contended that bail should be refused on the basis of unacceptable risk. He submitted that the applicant's time on remand, assuming a trial in late-2026, would be very unlikely to exceed the term of imprisonment he would receive if convicted of one or both of the armed robbery offences, noting that the maximum penalty for this offence is 25 years, and that the applicant has extensive prior convictions.

43 In terms of the nature and seriousness of the offending, Mr Mallia submitted that armed robbery endangers the safety of the members of the community. He posited that the sheer number of offences with which the applicant was charged 'speaks to the seriousness of the crime spree engaged in', which was further compounded by the total value of the items allegedly stolen - approximately $20,000.00 - the 'brazen' nature of the applicant targeting the same retail stores 'multiple times within days',[26] and the fact that the offending alleged between November 2024 and January 2025, encompassing the two armed robberies, involved a significant pattern of alleged offending which only stopped when the applicant was assaulted. [27]

44 He submitted that the prosecution case on both armed robbery charges was strong, including on the question whether the applicant was carrying a knife at the time of the offences, given both the CCTV footage and the statements of eye witnesses.

45 Mr Mallia submitted that the accused's extensive criminal history and bail history both did not bode well for his prospects of complying with a further grant of bail, including because he was on bail and a deferred sentence at the time he allegedly committed the armed robbery offences. And he argued that any assessment of the applicant's likely willingness to remain at Odyssey House and participate in the program should be made through the lens of his bail and criminal history. He further posited that the court should hold concerns for the appropriateness of Odyssey House, given it is a voluntary program, which includes participation in unsupervised activities offsite.

46 Mr Mallia submitted that, taking into account the surrounding circumstances which he had outlined, the applicant posed an unacceptable risk of committing a Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 offence whilst on bail, such as committing another armed robbery. And he argued that Mr Bhattacharya's argument that in order for the applicant to pose a credible risk, his offending would need to escalate in seriousness, was misplaced, because if the applicant committed an offence similar to the two alleged armed robberies, that would be a Schedule 2 offence, and would again endanger a member of the public.[28] He noted also that the complainants of the current alleged armed robberies are young people working in retail stores.

47 While conceding that the current alleged armed robberies were on the lower end of the range of seriousness of armed robberies, he posited that 'the elements that needed to be committed were committed',[29] and that the prospect that things would escalate in the future, either as a result of the applicant's actions, or because a member of the public might seek to confront and intercept him, causing the applicant to respond, was real.

48 He submitted that the applicant also posed an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of another person, because the current alleged offending was an escalation in the applicant's offending, which police believed would likely continue if he was bailed.

49 Mr Mallia further submitted that the applicant also posed an unacceptable risk of failing to surrender into custody in accordance with the conditions of bail, in light of his poor bail history, 'previous lengthy periods of evading police attention', and noting that the applicant is itinerant, with no fixed address or phone number, no ties to the jurisdiction, [30] and therefore no incentive to remain here.

50 He argued that the applicant's failure to comply with the conditions of his deferred sentence reflected a lack of genuine effort to rehabilitate, and submitted that I should not think that anything would be different on this occasion. [31]

51 Mr Mallia submitted that there were no conditions which could moderate the risks posed by the applicant, such that they would not be unacceptable.

52 The armed robberies with which the applicant is charged are not at the high end of the range of seriousness of such crimes, but nonetheless, armed robbery is always a serious offence, attracting as it does a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment. Armed robberies of soft-targets such as those alleged here are a prevalent crime. Although the alleged offences were rapidly completed, it should not be thought that such crimes may not have a serious impact on their victims.

53 In terms of the strength of the prosecution case on the armed robberies, at the suggestion of defence counsel, I viewed the CCTV footage of both events. I also read the statements of the various eyewitnesses contained in both hand-up briefs. Having done so, I concluded that the prosecution case on each of the armed robberies is strong, as was submitted by the respondent. In the East Brunswick Dan Murphy's event, the CCTV footage clearly shows the applicant reaching for his pocket with his right hand as he approaches the staff members. Lyon observed something he thought was a Stanley knife. Overall, there would be evidence that would entitle a conclusion that the applicant was armed with a knife, and deliberately displayed it before leaving the store with the stolen bottles of alcohol. And in the Malvern Dan Murphy's event, the knife wielded by the applicant, as observed by eyewitnesses, is clearly visible on the footage.

54 As for the other charges the subject of the application, the applicant, and his modus operandi, became quite well known in a number of those stores. I have no reason to doubt that the case on many of the charges will be strong.

55 The applicant has a very lengthy and relevant criminal history, in the context of which, it is alleged, the current offending was committed. As well as containing numerous convictions for crimes of dishonesty, the record contains many convictions for failing to answer bail and breaching conditions of bail, as well as breaches of supervisory-type sentencing orders. The respondent submitted that the applicant's history 'does not bode well for [his] prospects of complying with any potential grant of bail'.[32] I accepted that submission.

56 I had regard to the very sad history of the applicant, including his long-term drug addiction and his homelessness. I accepted that it would be in both the applicant's and the community's interests for the applicant to engage in drug rehabilitation, but what was on offer from Odyssey House left me with no confidence that the applicant would genuinely apply himself to the program. He tried and failed in the past, and nothing before the Court indicated that he was now better prepared to make a go of the difficult Odyssey House program. And should he leave, bearing in mind his homelessness, and the great difficulties Victoria Police have experienced in the past in locating him in connection with alleged offending for which they believed him responsible, there would be every chance that he would disappear into the sad world which he has inhabited for some years.

57 I had regard to the special vulnerability of the applicant as an Aboriginal person,[33] and gave full weight to all of the considerations set out in s 3A of the Act, the relevance of which in this case was canvassed in some detail in the affidavit in support of bail.

58 I accepted that the applicant would spend a lengthy period of time on remand should bail be refused, but was of the view that this period would not exceed the sentence he would likely receive if found guilty, in light of the nature of the offending here, and the lengthy criminal history of the applicant.

59 In relation to the risk posed by the applicant, the armed robberies alleged against the applicant represented a significant escalation in his offending, after many years of being a problem offender, and the fact that two armed robberies were alleged within a week in different retail stores was concerning, and belied the defence contention that the applicant is not the sort of person to habitually use a weapon in committing violent offence. Armed robbery is a violent offence, whether or not any person is actually attacked during the course of the crime.

60 Furthermore, I did not accept Mr Bhattacharya's contention that it would represent a further significant escalation for the applicant to use a knife to stab someone as opposed to simply threatening someone. What occurred in relation to the armed robberies alleged here was a function of the conduct of the applicant and the response of his alleged victims. Had either of the security guards or any of the staff members sought to stand in the way of the applicant or try to prevent him from leaving those stores, the outcomes could have been different. If a person is prepared to go to the serious length of arming himself with a weapon in order to steal property from a retail store, the prospect of escalation caused by lack of cooperation of a victim is not unrealistic. It is a relatively small step, and one often taken by offenders.

61 I formed the view that in the circumstances of this case, there would be every prospect that if released on bail, the applicant would continue on his trajectory of regularly committing criminal offences. Recent events indicated the real prospect that he might arm himself in preparation for doing so, and that the public might therefore be endangered. Furthermore, I was of the view that there would be little prospect of the applicant remaining and accepting treatment at Odyssey House, or otherwise abiding by the strictures of bail.

62 Having carefully considered all of the circumstances of this case, I was satisfied that the applicant had established a compelling reason, but also satisfied that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing an unacceptable risk of the types asserted.

63 For the reasons I have stated, the application for bail was refused.

[1] Not including 10 charges which the Affidavit in Support of 3 June 2025, indicates are 'to be withdrawn'.

[2] The applicant was previously granted bail on 17 January 2024 for some of these matters, but then charged with four burglary charges (one to be withdrawn; Informant Santoro matters) on 21 January 2025 and remanded on that date, with bail revoked on all outstanding matters.

[3] Contrary to Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 83AD.

[4] Bail Act 1977 s 4C ('The Act').

[9] The charge sheet reads 31 November 2024. This is an error, and I assume that the correct date of the charge is 30 November. In any event, it is clear that the charge relates to offending around the end of November 2024.

[16] Letter from Nadja Blair, Odyssey House, 20 June 2025.

[19] [2024] VSC 294 [54]-[61]. Counsel's reliance on the principles in this case was appropriate, notwithstanding subsequent developments in the matter - see Re Terei (No 3) [2024] VSC 423.

[20] [2024] VSC 802.

[21] Outline of submissions on behalf of the applicant, 23 June 2025 [14] ('Applicant's submissions').

[23] Applicant's submissions (n 21) [17].

[26] Outline of submissions on behalf of the respondent, 23 June 2025 [14] ('Respondent's submissions').

[30] Respondent's submissions (n 26) [29].

[32] Respondent's submissions (n 26) 16.