IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA	Not Restricted	
AT MELBOURNE
Criminal Division
S ECR 2020 0131

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)		
		
-and- 		
		
IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by IBRAHIM SLEIMAN		

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J	
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne	
DATES OF HEARING:	17 & 25 June 2020 and 29 July 2020 	
DATE OF RULING:	29 July 2020 	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Sleiman	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 469	

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Applicant charged with Schedule 1 offence – Whether exceptional circumstances established – Whether applicant, if bailed, presents an unacceptable risk – Application opposed – Current charges serious, violent and random –– Exceptional circumstances established – Risk can be mitigated to an acceptable level on interim basis – Interim bail granted with conditions – Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the Applicant	Mr M McGrath with
Mr W Blake	Furstenburg Law	
			
For the Respondent	Ms R Harper	Office of Public Prosecutions	

HIS HONOUR:
1	This is an application for bail by Ibrahim Sleiman (the ‘applicant’). He faces 13 charges, brought by Detective Senior Constable Rebecca Norris, primarily arising out of two incidents alleged to have occurred on 5 April 2012 and 31 October 2015, involving two separate and unrelated complainants (the ‘Norris matters’). The remainder of the charges relate to the execution of a search warrant at the applicant’s residence on 16 August 2019, two days after his arrest. All charges are as follows:
•	making a threat to inflict serious injury; 
•	false imprisonment (common law);
•	criminal damage;
•	intentionally causing injury (two charges);
•	indecent assault (two charges); 
•	kidnapping;
•	assault (common law) (two charges);
•	making a threat to kill;
•	possessing a prohibited weapon; and 
•	possessing a drug of dependence (cannabis).
Procedural history
2	The applicant has been in custody since the date of his arrest on 14 August 2019. At the time of his arrest, he was on bail in relation to the following three outstanding matters. 
3	In the first matter, where the informant is Senior Constable Kathryn Heily, the applicant was charged on 15 November 2018 with driving whilst authorisation suspended, driving a motor vehicle not fitted with an approved interlock device, and being learner driver driving a vehicle without an experienced driver (the ‘Heily matters’). He was originally charged on summons but was later granted bail following his arrest for failing to appear on summons on 30 April 2019.
4	In the second matter, where the informant is Constable Aiden Blake, the applicant is charged with trafficking in MDMA, six counts of possessing a drug of dependence (MDMA, Viagra, Valium, Olanzapine, Oxycodone and ecstasy), committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, and driving whilst authorisation suspended on 3 July 2019 (the ‘Blake matters’). 
5	Finally, where the informant is First Constable Rhys Smith, the applicant is charged with possessing methylamphetamine and committing an indictable offence while on bail, alleged to have occurred on 9 July 2019 (the ‘Smith matters’). 
6	Bail was revoked in each of the three outstanding matters on 8 October 2019. 
7	He has previously been refused bail in respect of the present charges in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 28 April 2020. On that occasion, bail was refused on the basis that the applicant failed to show a compelling reason that justified the grant of bail and was also an unacceptable risk. 
8	On 3 June 2020, notice of application for a grant of bail in this Court was filed in relation to the Norris matters. However, I understand this to application to concern all matters the applicant’s outstanding matters. 
9	Each of the Heily, Blake and Smith matters are next listed for mention on 2 July 2020 at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, and the Norris matters are next listed for a contested committal hearing on 23 November 2020. 
The applicable test
10	Although the test applied in the earlier application for bail was that of ‘compelling reason’, it is now accepted by both parties that the relevant test for this application is the exceptional circumstances test, pursuant to s 4AA(2) of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic). 
11	It was initially submitted by the applicant was in the compelling reason category on the basis that he is charged with kidnapping, a Schedule 2 offence under the Act, and the applicant was not prima facie the subject of any conditional liberty for any Schedule 1 or 2 offences when that offence is alleged to have occurred. 
12	However, the applicant is also charged with committing the indictable offence of possessing a drug on dependence on 16 August 2019, while he was subject to two grants of bail in the Blake and Smith matters, both of which involve Schedule 2 offences, namely, committing an indictable offence whilst on bail and trafficking a drug of dependence. 
13	Therefore, the applicant has been charged with committing a Schedule 2 offence whilst on bail for other Schedule 2 offences, and the Court must refuse bail unless satisfied by the applicant that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail. 
The alleged offending
Informant Norris
The first incident
14	The first complainant in this matter is Mitch Marasco. He first made contact with the applicant via Facebook in February 2012, and the two formed a platonic friendship during which they each used illicit substances.
15	On 4 April 2012, the applicant mistakenly sold Mr Marasco an unidentified substance instead of methylamphetamine. On discovering the error, the applicant stated, ‘You just cost me $2,000’, and told Mr Marasco to return the following day so that they could sort it out. 
16	On 5 April 2012, Mr Marasco returned to the applicant’s residence in Glenroy, intending to receive either a refund or the drugs that he had meant to purchase. 
17	The applicant was led to a pool house on the property, where he observed two unknown men, one of whom was holding a rifle. The applicant patted him down, removing his keys and phone, before sitting him in a chair and asking him whether he was a police officer. He then fetched a drop saw, a stereo and a distinctive walking stick. The stereo was used to project opera-style music throughout the pool room, and the walking stick was positioned in such a way that Mr Marasco believed the incident may have been recorded, however, this has not been established. 
18	It is the Crown case that the applicant tied Mr Marasco’s neck and hands to a window and told him that he was going to cut off his testicles unless he admitted that he worked for Victoria Police. He began to saw through the crotch of his pants, causing him to fear that he would be killed. In attempt to pacify the applicant, he falsely stated, ‘Yes man, alright, I’m a cop’. 
19	The applicant then allegedly beat him with a stick for an extended period of time, such that his back and legs turned black. Afterwards, the applicant told Mr Marasco that the adrenaline rush would stop if he started bleeding, and he then used a razor blade to cut through his pants before sticking it into his thigh, leaving a scar. 
20	The applicant allegedly continued to assault Mr Marasco, including by forcing his mouth open with pieces of wood, burning his lips by putting lit cigarettes in his mouth, and butting a cigarette out on his chest. 
21	At one point, the applicant asked Mr Marasco if he was circumcised before producing a Swiss army knife and a surgical tool, stating that he would do it himself. He allegedly proceeded to hit the tip of his penis ‘over and over’ for approximately 30 seconds with the knife. The applicant is alleged to have then wrapped Mr Marasco’s testicles around a metal rasp that was serrated on one side. The rasp cut into his testicles, causing immense pain. 
22	The applicant later questioned Mr Marasco about how much he earned and then asked why he should not kill him. He then told Mr Marasco that he would release him, if he agreed to pay him $900 per week, and he agreed. The applicant then handed Mr Marasco blunt knife and told him that if he wanted to stab him, to do it then. Whilst not stated, presumably he did not take the applicant up on this offer.
23	The applicant later walked Mr Marasco to his vehicle and instructed him not to report the incident to police or he would ‘have some people rape [him]’.
24	The day after the incident, Mr Marasco attended the Craigieburn Police Station and reported the assault to Detective Senior Constable Wade Pascoe. It is DSC Pascoe’s evidence that he took notes of his conversation with the first complainant, together with approximately 24 photographs of the first complainant’s injuries, including red marks and burns on his chest that he believed were consistent with the assault described. 
25	Mr Marasco refused to make a formal statement or identify the perpetrator at that time, citing fears of repercussions against his life and the lives of his family members. However, DSC Pascoe stated that inquiries based on the information provided by Mr Marasco led him to believe that the applicant was involved in the offending. 
26	The case was then handed over to DSC Bryan Strangman of the Moreland Crime Investigation Unit, who also provided a statement in relation to the matter. DSC Strangman stated that an investigation was commenced but later marked as ‘complaint withdrawn’, and the file closed.
27	Very unfortunately, the file, including all related notes and photographs taken at the time of the complaint, has since gone missing and remains missing as at the time of this application. 
28	On 1 August 2019, some seven years after the alleged incident, Mr Marasco made a formal statement to police. Five photographs were taken of his scarring from the alleged offending. In the course of her evidence, Informant Norris stated the investigation is still ongoing. She indicated there are two other witnesses who observed the incident in 2012 but, at this stage, those witnesses have not yet been spoken to. 
The second incident
29	The second complainant in this matter is Matthew Bologna. He and the applicant were acquainted with each other through their mutual connection with Michael Giaquinta, the applicant’s former partner.
30	On 31 October 2015, Mr Bologna and Mr Giaquinta were out at The Peel Hotel in Collingwood. Mr Giaquinta and the applicant were not in a relationship at the time. At approximately 1 am, the applicant approached both men and told them not to go to the same places that he frequented. 
31	Mr Bologna responded that they could go wherever they wanted. The applicant is then alleged to have grabbed him by the shoulders before throwing him to the ground. The applicant allegedly stood over him and said, ‘I’m going to kill you. Watch your back. Just wait.’ 
32	Mr Bologna felt scared and, knowing the applicant’s reputation, took the threat seriously. He sought to report the incident to security staff but observed that the applicant was already speaking with both security staff and the manager. Mr Bologna and Mr Giaquinta were subsequently asked by the manager to leave the hotel. 
33	Shortly after, he made two calls to emergency services and requested to speak to police. However, due to his level of intoxication, no statement was taken at that time. 
34	Mr Bologna made his first formal statement to police on 30 July 2019, which is also significant time after the alleged incident. Mr Gianquinta has declined to make a statement. 
Arrest
35	On 14 August 2019, the applicant was arrested in relation to both matters while in attendance at Preston Police Station. It is alleged he was unable to be interviewed due to his erratic and violent behaviour and was held at the Broadmeadows Police Station overnight. He was charged the following day.
Execution of Search Warrant
36	On 16 August 2019, a search warrant was executed at the applicant’s residence in Coburg, which located a sword and a bag containing green vegetable matter (alleged to be cannabis). The applicant’s dog was also discovered without any access to water or any means of getting outside. A number of uncapped syringes were observed in the residence, which made it unsafe for police officers to remain inside.
Informant Heily
37	On 15 November 2018, the applicant was intercepted while driving a motor vehicle on Sussex Street in Pascoe Vale. At the time, his license was suspended and his vehicle was not fitted with an alcohol interlock device, as was required. 
38	On 28 December 2018, the applicant was charged on summons to appear at Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court on 30 April 2019. He failed to appear and a warrant was issued for his arrest. On 17 May 2019, the warrant was executed while the applicant was in police custody. He was released on bail. 
Informant Blake
39	On 3 July 2019, the applicant was intercepted while in a stationary motor vehicle in Clifton Hill. A search of the vehicle was conducted under the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic), which located 37 ecstasy capsules, Valium, scales, various zip-lock bags and other unspecified drug paraphernalia, nine mobile phones, and multiple pieces of identification in other persons’ names. The applicant was charged and released on police bail. 
Informant Smith
40	On 9 July 2019, police approached the applicant in the vicinity of a motor vehicle at the Epping Plaza in Epping. After observing a plastic bag protruding from the applicant’s wallet, police conducted a search of the vehicle under the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic), which located a small bag containing a crystal-like substance that was believed to be methylamphetamine. Again, the applicant was charged and released on bail. 
41	As previously stated, on 8 October 2019, while on remand in the Norris matters, bail was revoked in all three of the Heily, Blake and Smith matters.
The applicant
42	The applicant is 30 years of age. He is the second youngest of nine children. His parents migrated to Melbourne from Lebanon in the mid-1960s and divorced when he was a child. 
43	It is said that, at the age of seven, the applicant was sexually abused by a family friend. Notwithstanding this, he was reportedly a good student and went on to study an advanced diploma in criminal justice and work in industrial galvanising. 
44	However, he developed a problematic relationship with illicit substances and has since been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and anti-social personality disorder, for which he has previously been treated with various antipsychotics as recently as May 2018. As I understand it, that treatment has not continued, but there is a prospect it will resume through the National Disability Insurance Scheme (‘NDIS’), which I will return to later. 
45	Prior to his remand, the applicant was residing at his mother’s house in Coburg. His mother, Wafa Sleiman, has given evidence on this application in relation to those premises as it is proposed the applicant will return there if he were to be granted bail. I will return to her evidence in more detail shortly. 
Criminal history
46	The applicant has a relevant criminal history commencing from when he was just 16 years old. This includes offences of violence; indecent acts in the presence of a child; assaulting and resisting police officers; possessing and trafficking illicit drugs; stalking; false imprisonment; extortion; impersonating police; possessing controlled and prohibited weapons; possessing protected wildlife; and failing to provide treatment, shelter, food, and drink to an animal. The applicant’s prior history also includes dishonesty and driving offences as well as breaches of probation, parole and court orders, including a conviction for failing to answer bail in 2006. 
The applicable legislation
47	The applicant is entitled to bail unless the Act requires the Court to refuse bail. In the present application, as I previously described, bail must be refused unless the applicant demonstrates that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail. 
48	In considering whether exceptional circumstances exist, the Court must take into account the surrounding circumstances under s 3AAA. 
49	As I noted in Re Brown, the phrase ‘exceptional circumstances’ is not defined in the Act. In that matter, I summarised the relevant principles as follows:
In order to be ‘exceptional’, it has been accepted that:
•	The circumstances relied upon must be such as to take the case out of the normal so as to justify the admission of the applicant to bail.
•	Whilst the threshold of exceptional circumstances is high, it is not an impossible standard to reach.
•	Furthermore, exceptional circumstances may be established by a combination of circumstances which may, by themselves, not be considered exceptional.
50	The meaning of exceptional circumstances has been given further consideration in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, and, in particular, its impact on applications for bail. The emerging principles were summarised by Beach JA in Re Diab, as follows:
(1) 	Delay in trials due to COVID-19 may establish exceptional circumstances, particularly (but not limited to) where the delay is likely to lead to an accused spending more time on remand than the likely sentence. 
(2)	The existence of the current COVID-19 health crisis will not, however, give rise to exceptional circumstances in all cases. The crisis is simply one of the surrounding circumstances that a bail decision maker must take into account in considering an application for bail.	
(3) 	The relevance of the COVID-19 crisis is that it may make time in custody very difficult and/or significantly more difficult than usual. Moreover, to the extent that correctional facilities are not permitting visitors, there may be greater isolation for those on remand. Additionally, the extent to which the crisis may impede education and/or rehabilitation opportunities is a matter capable of being relevant and, to that extent, would need to be taken into account. 
(4)	In any individual bail application, in the absence of agreement between the parties, much will depend upon the evidence of the effect of the crisis so far as it concerns the circumstances of the applicant for bail. 
51	If satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist, the Court must nevertheless refuse bail if satisfied by the prosecutor that the applicant is an unacceptable risk of the kind set out in s 4E(1)(a). In considering unacceptable risk, the Court must again have regard to the surrounding circumstances in s 3AAA and consider whether there are any conditions of bail that might be imposed to mitigate the risk so that it is not unacceptable. 
52	Further, if considering releasing the applicant on bail, the Court must make inquiries of the prosecutor as to whether there is in force a family violence intervention order, family violence safety notice or recognised DVO against the applicant. Relevantly, the applicant is currently named as the respondent to two interim no-contact Personal Safety Intervention Orders listing the two complainants in the Norris matters as the affected persons. Both orders were made in the Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court on 16 August 2019 and will last until final order, unless varied, revoked or withdrawn. 
53	Finally, in interpreting and applying the Act, the Court must have regard to the guiding principles in s 1B. 
Submissions
54	Counsel on behalf of the applicant, Mr McGrath, relied on a number of factors, primarily on the perceived weakness of the prosecution case and the delay, to demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances. 
55	Ms Harper, on behalf of the respondent, opposed the applicant on the basis that the applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances and that the applicant would pose an unacceptable risk if granted bail.  
Strength of the Crown case
56	In respect of the alleged offending involving the first complainant, it is noted that the majority of the charges have now been withdrawn. As to the remaining charges, in light of the police file having gone missing, Mr McGrath submitted that there are no contemporaneous notes or material supporting the allegations, apart from the notes taken by a police officer, and no other material supporting the allegations or photographs taken at the time or any forensic evidence. 
57	Therefore, the prosecution case relies on the statement made by Mr Marasco in August 2019, which counsel on behalf of the applicant submitted is inconsistent with his first complaint to police in 2012. It was submitted that the applicant is an admitted drug user and was using drugs at the time that he first made the complaint. Due to the elapsed time, lost police file, inconsistencies and the first complainant’s credibility, it is submitted that the case against the applicant in respect of those charges in inherently weak. The applicant, through his counsel, submitted that there is a case to be determined by a jury and, at most, that there is no reasonable prospect of conviction.
58	Counsel on behalf of the respondent, Ms Harper, ultimately accepted in the course of her submissions that she accepted the case was significantly weakened. Though, the respondent’s written material put that the complainant’s statements are compelling in their detail and he made a timely report to police within hours of the alleged offending. 
59	In the respondent’s written material, it was also submitted that there will be evidence of Mr Marasco’s distress when he attended at the Craigieburn Police Station and, although the 24 photographs taken of his injuries cannot be located, DSC Pascoe may give evidence of his observation in relation to the allegation of those injuries. 
60	As I indicated to counsel during the hearing, I take the view that the case is significantly weakened by the absence of the material which, in the ordinary course, would have been expected to have been available. 
61	In relation to the second incident of the Norris matters, the prosecution’s case also relies on a version of events given some four years after the incident by the alleged victim. Mr McGrath submitted there were also significant issues in relation to Mr Bologna’s credibility and reliability, given that he was too intoxicated to make a statement on the night of the alleged incident. In my view, this case also carries weaknesses as a result of these circumstances. 
Delay
62	The applicant has been in custody since his arrest on 14 August 2019. As at the first date of hearing in the present application, he had spent 307 days on remand. His committal hearing has been adjourned to 23 November 2020, and the Court heard that there is apparently no prospect of resolution.
63	Given the postponement of jury trials due to the COVID-19 restrictions, the applicant’s counsel submitted the trial will be unlikely to be conducted before the end of 2021 or the beginning of 2022. Mr McGrath submitted that the delay would be in the order of at least two years, which, he submitted, in and of itself, is an exceptional circumstance that justifies the grant of bail.
64	Ms Harper ultimately conceded that the delay in this matter may be significant but not inordinate.  She further submitted that, in the event the applicant is found guilty of some or all of the charged offences, he is likely to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment that would exceed even a lengthy period of remand. 
65	There is no question, in my opinion, that that is a significant delay. It remains unclear whether a likely sentence would exceed a period of remand if the applicant remained in custody. I note that the applicant was sentenced for similar offending against two victims in 2012 and received a total effective sentence of three years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 months. 
Stable accommodation and family support
66	Counsel for the applicant also relied on the availability of stable accommodation and proposed the applicant return to live with his mother at 10 O'Hea Street in Coburg. It was submitted in the applicant’s written material that the continuing availability of this accommodation is a significant stabilising factor as well as a protective factor against risk. 
67	As I indicated earlier, Mrs Sleiman gave evidence on the application that she is supportive of the applicant, as are his siblings, and he is welcome to return. On her evidence, the premises are comprised of a house and a separate set of premises attached to the main house, similar to a ‘granny flat’. The applicant previously had primary occupancy of the house, with his mother and younger brother resided in the attached unit. Mrs Sleiman indicated that, if the applicant were granted bail, he would reside in the granny flat with her and his younger brother as the main premises is currently rented by others. 
68	However, that accommodation is not without issue. Counsel for the respondent noted that the proposed address is the same address at which the applicant was residing at the time of his arrest. Ms Harper further submitted that this proposed accommodation is not appropriate, and any supervision his mother and siblings may provide would be inadequate. 
Ties to the jurisdiction
69	It was submitted on the applicant’s behalf that his family resides in Melbourne, and he has no relationships or ties outside of the jurisdiction. In any event, it was submitted that the applicant is not permitted to leave Victoria ‘under the current restrictions’. At the time of the hearing of this application in June, Victoria’s borders were not closed, and the applicant would not have been prevented from leaving the state under COVID-19 restrictions. 
70	It was also submitted that the applicant is willing to surrender his passport and not apply for any other.
Treatment in the community
71	As noted, the applicant has a number of diagnoses relating to his mental health. On 23 August 2019, while in custody, he was approved for a funding package under the NDIS. This package is said to include the immediate support of psychiatrists and psychologists, as well as support from the ‘Thumbs Up Community Services’ (‘Thumbs Up’) to refer the applicant in with appropriate supports and services. 
72	Counsel on behalf of the respondent referred the Court to a letter written by the Director and Support Coordinator of Thumbs Up, Niydalh Elbouch, dated 16 June 2020. Mr Elbouch’s letter confirms that an assessment to determine available services could be conducted within 48 hours of the applicant being granted bail and there is no wait list to access those services. 
73	In the course of their submissions, I made clear to the parties that I would not be willing to release the applicant on bail until some clear treatment program or assessment had been made for him in relation to his difficulties with illicit substances.  
Hardship in custody due to COVID-19
74	All of the applicant’s physical and personal contact with his family has ceased whilst in custody as a result of restrictions implemented by Corrections Victoria in response to COVID-19. Further, it is noted generally that neither money nor personal property can be delivered to prisoners. 
Unacceptable risk
75	It was submitted that the aforementioned matters establish that exceptional circumstances exist and that, taken together with appropriate conditions of bail, those matters work to ameliorate any risk to an acceptable level.
Respondent’s submissions on risk
76	Counsel for the respondent, relying on a report by the Informant Norris, submitted that the applicant remains an unacceptable risk if he were to be released on bail. It was put that the applicant’s criminal history is indicative of his ‘blatant disregard’ for court orders, and he has demonstrated an inability to abide by any orders made, making his risk of committing an offence whilst on bail an unacceptable one. 
77	Ms Harper also submitted that the applicant would present an unacceptable risk of interfering with witnesses or otherwise obstructing the course of justice as the informant has alleged that the applicant has previously instructed a complainant to withdraw statements and make false statements to police. The informant gave evidence at the hearing of the application that there are also allegations that his family have shown a willingness to assist him in those endeavours.
78	On the informant’s evidence the applicant’s risk of failing to surrender into custody is unacceptable as the applicant has a significant history of avoiding apprehension and detection by police. Four bench warrants were issued for the application between 10 April 2017 and 30 April 2019 for failing to appear to court on summons. 
79	Finally, it is noted that the applicant has ties to New South Wales, in that his father resides in Sydney.
Analysis
Exceptional circumstances
80	In my view, the threshold of exceptional circumstances has been reached by a combination of the delay that will befall this case and the weakness of the case on the first set of charges in the Norris matters due to the loss of primary evidence and, to a degree, weaknesses in the case involving the second complainant as well. 
81	It is difficult to know what the effect that loss of evidence will be until after the committal has been heard, but I accept that, at this stage, there is a significant weakness in the prosecution case.  
82	The delay will be significant, although there are longer delays likely to occur than this one. Nonetheless I accept that those two factors would amount to exceptional circumstances that would justify a grant of bail. 
83	However, there is a second stage to the determination of this application, which  requires consideration of the respondent’s assertion that the applicant is an unacceptable risk, if he were to be released on bail, of committing further offences, interfering with the course of justice, or interfering with witnesses.
84	At the hearing of this application on 17 June 2020, I ruled on the application to the extent of determining the issue of exceptional circumstances as detailed above. 
85	I then adjourned the matter, part heard, until 25 June 2020 to allow the legal representatives for the applicant to obtain some evidence concerning a substance-abuse treatment program that may be available to the applicant if he were to be released.
Unacceptable risk
86	On 25 June 2020, counsel on behalf of the applicant advised that arrangements were made for assistance through the North & West Metro Alcohol and Other Drug (‘AOD’) Service with an intake and comprehensive AOD assessment of the applicant to be done on 29 June 2020. In a letter, dated 18 June 2020, AOD clinician Kate George stated that he would receive treatment in the form of counselling over 10 sessions, which can be extended.  
87	It was also proposed that he be treated privately by David Ring, who appears to be a social worker who specialises in the treatment of addiction and mental health issues as part of the Resolution Addiction Treatment Service in Coburg. A letter was provided to the Court from Mr Ring indicated that the treatment would continue over a period of about eight weeks, which the first appointment set for 26 June 2020.  
88	I also received a report from the Court Integrated Services Program (‘CISP’) concluding that the applicant is assessed as suitable for case management with that program. A plan for his treatment and management has been devised in the event that he is granted bail, which integrates the services of Thumbs Up . 
89	With reference to the considerations in s 3AAA of the Act as they apply to risk: 
•	The offending alleged in the Norris matters is serious; 
•	While he was on bail at the time of his arrest for the Norris matters, the arrest itself took place a number of years after the offences are alleged to have occurred, and he was not on bail at that time;
•	The applicant’s criminal history, as summarised above, is significant and relevant as it includes offences of violence; false imprisonment; possessing and trafficking illicit drugs; dishonesty and driving offences; and breaches of probation, parole and court orders; 
•	I have also considered the applicant’s personal circumstances, his mental health conditions and his substance-abuse issues, which I have already referred to and, in particular, the availability of treatment in the community in relation to his mental health and substance abuse; and
•	I acknowledge also the support he appears to have from his mother and family. 
90	On the basis of those matters and the matters that I indicated established exceptional circumstances, I have concluded that the risk of releasing the applicant can be ameliorated by the imposition of conditions at least on a provisional basis. 
Conclusion
91	At the second hearing of the application on 25 June 2020, the applicant was admitted on, what I described as, interim bail, with the intention to return on 29 July 2020 to review the applicant’s compliance. 
92	I indicated to the parties and to the applicant that, if he breached any of those conditions in the meantime, I reserved to the respondent liberty to apply and the matter would come back before me. I also made it clear that, if any breaches are established, then, in all likelihood, I would revoke the bail order and the applicant would return to custody. Similarly, if there are no breaches then I will consider whether to make the interim order into a final order.
93	The applicant was released on interim bail on his own undertaking and with the following conditions:
1)	The applicant is to reside at 10 O’Hea Street, Coburg, in the State of Victoria (‘place of residence’); 
2)	The applicant is not to be absent from his place of residence between the hours of 8 pm and 7 am each day (the ‘curfew hours’);
3)	The applicant is to present himself at the front door of his place of residence during the curfew hours upon the reasonable request of a member of Victoria Police;
4)	The applicant is to report to the Officer in Charge, or their nominee, at the Brunswick Police Station every Monday, Wednesday and Friday between the hours of 9 am and 6 pm, but such reporting is suspended until the informant has notified the applicant that in-person reporting has resumed; 
5)	The applicant is to comply with all lawful directions of the Court Integrated Services Program;
6)	The applicant is to abstain from the consumption of any alcohol or any drug of dependence within the meaning of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1998 (Vic) without lawful authorisation under that Act;
7)	The applicant is not to contact or associate with, either directly or indirectly, any witness for the prosecution, other than the informant; 
8)	The applicant is to surrender any passports or other travel documents within 24 hours of release and not apply for any other such documents;
9)	The applicant is not to leave the state of Victoria;
10)	The applicant is not to attend any points of international departure;
11)	The applicant is to appear at the Melbourne Magistrate’s Court on 2 July 2020 and thereafter as directed by that Court;  
12)	The applicant is to appear at the Supreme Court of Victoria at 9.30 am on 29 July 2020. 	

ADDENDUM
Application for revocation
94	On 16 July 2020, the respondent filed a notice of an application for revocation of bail on the grounds that the applicant was arrested on 10 July 2020 and charged with threat to inflict serious injury, unlawful assault, committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, and failing to comply with a direction given under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic). 
95	The matter returned before me on 29 July 2020 for the hearing of the revocation application. 
Circumstances of the alleged offending
96	According to the police summary in the preliminary brief, on 8 July 2020, the alleged victim in this matter, Edward Dessman, received a phone call from his cousin, David Angrilli, shortly before 1 pm. He asked to meet at Mr Dessman’s residence in Gladstone Park within the next 20 minutes. Mr Dessman agreed and, feeling concerned about the meeting’s purpose, he contacted his friend, Vince Galuzzo, to come with him. They drove to his residence in Mr Galuzzo’s son’s vehicle. 
97	When Mr Dessman and Mr Galuzzo arrived at the property, Mr Angrilli was standing outside his vehicle, which he had parked in their driveway. Mr Dessman entered the garage of his property to open the door to his house and noticed a second person, who is alleged to have been the applicant, walking towards him from Mr Angrilli's vehicle. Mr Dessman described the individual as having ‘a distinctive, large face tattoo over half of his face, with a big smile’. 
98	It is alleged by Mr Dessman that the applicant was aggressive and accused him of 'bashing his boy and running through his sister's house’. He also is alleged to have said to Mr Dessman, 'You owe me and my sister money'. Although he was uncertain who the applicant meant, he asked whether he was referring to Nada Peters, who is Mr Dessman’s former partner and currently resides with Mr Angrilli. The applicant is alleged to have replied, ‘Yes, I'm referring to Nada. I don't care who you know. Do you know who I am?' Mr Dessman said he did not. 
99	According to the summary, Mr Angrilli was ‘egging on’ the applicant by saying that Mr Dessman owed money and other similar comments. The applicant is then alleged to have said to Mr Dessman, 'You better listen to me because I'll be coming back for you and your family. I don't care who you are and who you know. I want Nada's computer, her Mona Lisa picture, and I want our money’.
100	As the applicant allegedly became more aggressive, Mr Dessman left the garage to create distance between them. He also alleged that the applicant appeared to be holding a pistol in his jacket pocket, as both Mr Dessman and Mr Galuzzo believed they saw a pistol grip. It is not clear at this stage whether the applicant did have a firearm in his pocket, but Mr Dessman moved into the street so that there might be witnesses to anything that occurred.  
101	Mr Agrilli is alleged to have said to the applicant, 'Him and his son are full of shit, Ibby. Don't listen to them'. Mr Dessman realised that this second male was the applicant as he had heard Mr Angrilli refer to his partner, Ibrahim Sleiman, as “Ibby” in the past. 
102	It is further alleged that the applicant continued to pursue Mr Dessman and got in his face, while Mr Angrilli encouraged him. Mr Angrilli is alleged to have produced as 15 cm blade in his right hand and swung to punch Mr Dessman with his other hand, which did not make contact. Mr Dessman then used his mobile to contact 000. According to Mr Dessman, the applicant is alleged to have said, ‘You better have the stuff and the money. I’m coming back for ya. I’m gonna put a bullet through your head’. 
103	Mr Angrilli is then alleged to have used the blade to puncture holes in three of tyres on Mr Galuzzo’s son’s vehicle before returning to his own vehicle and saying to the applicant, ‘Let’s get out of here because he’s calling the cops.’ 
CCTV footage
104	There is CCTV footage of this incident from a neighbouring property, which I have viewed. The camera is some 40 or 50 metres from where the incident took place.  Due to the distance of the camera from Mr Dessman’s property, it is, first of all, impossible to say what was said because there is no sound and, secondly, there is some difficulty identifying the parties captured. 
105	What can be seen is the applicant, by his own admission, confronting Mr Dessman as Mr Dessman walks backward down the street. I must say it does appear that he was doing so in a threatening and intimidating manner. Mr McGrath, who appeared on behalf of the applicant, accepted that there was a confrontation ‘of some sort’. 
106	During that time, Mr Agrilli appears to have produced a knife – and it is not in issue in this matter that he had one with him - and has attacked Mr Galuzzo’s son’s vehicle. The informant in this matter, Senior Constable Roopam Sodhi, gave evidence at the hearing. She told the Court that she attended the scene and observed that three tyres on Dessman's vehicle were slashed and deflated as a result.
107	Informant Sodhi also advised that, with the technology available to Victoria Police, she was able to enhance the images in the footage, which enabled her to better identify the individuals involved and the actions that occurred. 
Submissions
108	At the hearing, it was properly conceded by the respondent that the fourth charge against the applicant should be withdrawn as neither the applicant’s residence in Coburg nor the alleged victim’s residence in Gladstone Park were the subject of lockdowns imposed by the Victorian Government at that time. 
109	In argument, Ms Harper, on behalf of the respondent, submitted that risk posed by the applicant whilst on bail has been realised. The applicant demonstrated a willingness to offend within two weeks of the provisional grant of bail on 25 June. This alleged offending is of a similar nature to the charges of the Norris matters for which that provisional bail was granted, and Ms Harper submitted that no condition could be imposed by this Court to make the risk the applicant poses acceptable.   
110	Mr McGrath's position on behalf of the applicant is that, firstly, it is not alleged that any of the conditions that I imposed on 25 June have been breached. Secondly, the applicant has consented to an invention order in relation to Mr Dessman and Mr Galuzzo without making admissions, and his co-accused, Mr Agrilli, is in custody which, in his submission, addresses the risk of further reoffending. 
111	It was further submitted, by reference to comments made by the applicant during his record of interview, the nature of the confrontation and the veracity of Mr Dessman’s version of events is in issue. Mr McGrath noted that the prosecution case is also weakened by the fact that Mr Dessman did not allege that the applicant made a threat to inflict serious injury until he made a second statement to police. 
112	Importantly, Mr McGrath has made submissions in relation to the fact that COVID-19 is now within the prison system, and the increased risk or hardship for those who are in custody that had been foreshadowed is now a reality. However, as Ms Harper pointed out, the applicant has been in custody since his arrest for these matters on 10 July, and he has been effectively in isolation since that date, consistent with protecting him and other prisoners from the risk of COVID-19 infection.
Analysis
113	As previously stated, I have reviewed the CCTV footage. It is clear enough to me that what occurred involved, at a minimum, the applicant personally in a confrontation with Mr Dessman. Whilst there is an issue about what he said, the manner in which he is conducting himself at least leaves open to inference that he said what Mr Dessman alleged he did during the course of that confrontation. I accept that it is open to be argued that something else occurred. On the basis of what I have seen and on the evidence of the informant, I am prepared to conclude that there is a reasonable prospect that those allegations will be established.
114	Whilst it is true that none of the specific conditions that I fixed on 25 June have been breached, the applicant’s conduct, on the evidence available, has materialised a risk that is unacceptable. 
Conclusion
115	In those circumstances, I propose to vacate the orders that I made on 25 June 2020 and the applicant will remain in custody.