Re Am (a pseudonym)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2025 0222

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by AM (a pseudonym)

---

JUDGE:	Orr JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 October 2025
DATE OF RULING:	9 October 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re AM (a pseudonym)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 637

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Charges of using a carriage service to publish violent extremist material, possessing and controlling such material, threatening to use force and violence against a group distinguished by religion and using a carriage service to make a threat to kill – Child applicant – Applicant assessed as unsuitable by Youth Justice for bail service – Failure to abide by bail conditions on previous grants of bail – Longstanding fixation with terrorist organisation and ideology – Acquisition of weapons that are unaccounted for – Whether exceptional circumstances made out – Whether unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of any person, or committing an offence while on bail – Exceptional circumstances made out – Unacceptable risk – Bail refused – Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 15AA; Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 1B, 3AAA, 3B and 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr S Norton with Mr N Jane	Stary Norton Halphen
For the Respondent	Mr B Stevens	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

HER HONOUR:

The applicant for bail, who was 17 years old at the time of the alleged offending, faces trial in the Children’s Court on four charges of contravening various provisions of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (‘Criminal Code’). The applicant was charged on 23 May 2025 with: one charge of using a carriage service to publish violent extremist material (charge 1);[1] one charge of possessing or controlling violent extremist material, in the form of data held in a computer or contained in a data storage device, obtained or accessed using a carriage service (charge 2);[2] one charge of threatening to use force or violence against a group distinguished by religion (charge 3);[3] and one charge of using a carriage service to make a threat to kill (charge 4).[4]
[1]Contrary to s 474.45B(1) of the Criminal Code.
[2]Contrary to s 474.45C(1) of the Criminal Code.
[3]Contrary to s 80.2BA(1) of the Criminal Code.
[4]Contrary to s 474.15(1) of the Criminal Code.

Charge 1 concerns the publication on Instagram of material related to the listed terrorist organisation, Islamic State (‘IS’). The applicant is alleged to have posted a French language IS video featuring a series of scenes of: air strikes on civilian populations; IS militants undertaking training, engaged in combat and executing captives; and terrorist attacks on Western cities. The video includes the English subtitle, ‘And the time has come for revenge’, at which point multiple captives are depicted on their knees being executed with a pistol at close range. It is alleged that the applicant posted this video on an Instagram account on two occasions on 11 April 2025, with the following captions:

(a) ‘I love my niggas in sham [Syria] #dawla [state] #islam’; and

(b) ‘The lions of Islam under the guidance of amir U muaminin Abu Bakr al baghdadi (may Allah accept him)’.[5]

[5]Charge 1 is presently framed as a between dates charge, alleging that the applicant used a carriage service to publish violent extremist material between 12 March 2025 and 21 May 2025. I was informed at the hearing that the charge is to be amended to allege that the offending occurred on 11 April 2025.

Charge 2 concerns the applicant’s possession of the same video and other material related to IS on a phone that was found during the execution of a search warrant at his home on 22 May 2025. The video had been downloaded to the phone, and screenshots of the video had been saved. Additional IS videos located on the phone depicted combat footage, attacks and airstrikes on civilian populations, attacks on Western militaries, and dead bodies.

Charges 3 and 4 concern threats to kill that the applicant is alleged to have made in an email to the Melbourne Hebrew Congregation on 21 May 2025. The email was sent with the display name ‘Adolf Hitler’ from the email address ‘[redacted]@yahoo.com’ and contained the following content:

I must say you may be the oldest synagogue but let it b[e] known it will not stop us from killing you poison Jews fuck you all. From Friday Shabbat time there will be a shooter coming in at night and shooting everyone of you fucking venom dead. You people are asbad as shias. Know that the Islamic state has not and will never end. We on behalf of the Khilafah will burn and slaughter all your people in one go for the sole purpose to exterminate the Jewish disease and to create a new solution to the Jewish question And let it be known that the school called [redacted] secondary college has explosives all around the school (in all middle and senior school classroom and bathroom) and is ready to explode soon. Just wait and see the black flag of Islam on top of your burned out synagogue and the flag of Hitler (a very great man) on your synagogue and that school [redacted] secondary college Be prepared and if I were I would leave the country know all you Jews are not welcome here I hope to see your burnt corpse on television.

The applicant was arrested on 22 May 2025 and has been remanded in custody at a youth justice centre since that time. An application for bail to a Magistrate in the Children’s Court was refused on 10 July 2025. The applicant turned 18 years old shortly before the hearing of this application. He has been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Oppositional Defiance Disorder. He also has some degree of cognitive impairment, although there is no evidence of any extant diagnosis of intellectual disability.

The applicant applies for bail on the following ‘grounds’:[6]
[6]These ‘grounds’ were set out in a Notice of Intention to Make an Application for Bail dated 9 September 2025.

(a) he is a child;

(b) he has no prior criminal history;

(c) he has a stable residence and supportive family;

(d) he intends to continue a day program upon release; and

(e) he seeks the support of the Youth Justice Enhanced Bail Supervision and Support program, including electronic monitoring of proposed curfew and exclusion zone conditions.

The application for bail is opposed.

Given that the applicant has been charged with Commonwealth offences that are defined as ‘terrorism offences’,[7] s 15AA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) (‘Commonwealth Crimes Act’) prevents me from granting bail unless the applicant satisfies me that exceptional circumstances exist to justify bail. If I am so satisfied, then the applicant must be granted bail unless the prosecution satisfies me that there is an unacceptable risk that the applicant would, if released on bail, do one or more of the things identified in s 4E(1) of the Bail Act 1977 (‘Bail Act’).[8] In considering whether there is such a risk, I am required to take into account all relevant circumstances, including the matters listed in s 3AAA(1) of the Bail Act. Given that the applicant is a child by law,[9] I am also required to take the issues identified in s 3B(1) of the Bail Act into account.
[7]See [0] below.
[8]See [27] below.
[9]See n 26 below.

Having considered the evidence, the submissions, the legislative framework and the applicable legal principles, I am satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that exceptional circumstances exist to justify bail. However, I am also satisfied that the prosecution has demonstrated that there is an unacceptable risk that the applicant would, if released on bail, commit a Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 offence,[10] or otherwise endanger the safety or welfare of others. I consider that there are presently no conditions of bail that can be imposed to mitigate the risk posed by the applicant so that it is not an unacceptable risk.
[10]See n 22 below.

Overview of the investigation and alleged offending

On 8 May 2025, the Victorian Joint Counter Terrorism Team commenced an investigation into the activities of the applicant. The investigation commenced following a handover of information from Victoria Police. At this time, the applicant was 17 years old and living with his parents and three younger siblings in their family home. The applicant had been the subject of an earlier investigation in 2021, to which I will return. It is alleged that the applicant has displayed a longstanding fixation with IS.

On 9 May 2025, police identified an Instagram account that is alleged to belong to the applicant. It is alleged that the posts on the Instagram account included violent extremist material,[11] namely the video that is the subject of charge 1, which was posted on two separate occasions on 11 April 2025. There were also other posts on the Instagram account depicting the applicant with knives and machetes, including:
[11]See Criminal Code, s 474.45A(1).

(a) an image posted on 1 January 2025 depicting a TV remote and a small black knife, with the caption, ‘2 items I carry with me ALWAYS lol’;

(b) three images posted on 13 February 20025 depicting the applicant standing in a bathroom with a hood over his head, wearing a face covering and holding a small knife in his left hand;

(c) an image posted on 30 April 2025 depicting the applicant taking a photograph of himself in a public toilet, holding a folding, tactical style knife in his left hand; and

(d) a video posted on 30 April 2025 depicting the applicant in the same public toilet drawing a machete from his pants and pointing it towards the mirror, with the caption, ‘New mach’.

The Instagram posts also included an image of the applicant standing in front of a mirror in a bathroom with his right hand raised and the index finger on that hand extended upwards, in a gesture that is alleged to be an affirmation commonly made by those with a Salafist-Jihadist or Takfirist ideology such as that held by IS.

At 1:51 pm on 21 May 2025, a representative of the Melbourne Hebrew Congregation received the email that is the subject of charges 3 and 4. The Rabbi from the congregation reported the email to the National Security Hotline.

The following day, the applicant was arrested and a search warrant was executed at his home. Police located handwritten notes and drawings in the applicant’s bedroom, which included the note, ‘Kill them wherever you find them – 9:5 Quran’, and a drawing of a stick figure aiming a firearm at the Melbourne Cricket Ground with the caption, ‘MCG – target Australians, ppl of Australia. Aim – To kill as many Aussie dogs as possible. X1000 dead Australians’.

Police located a mobile phone in the bathroom, which is alleged to belong to the applicant. The phone was found wedged between the bathtub and the wall. Two SIM cards were found, one of which was installed in the phone and the other of which was loose in the case of the phone. A subscriber check conducted on the SIM card installed in the phone established that it was subscribed in the applicant’s name, using his date of birth and home address.

A forensic analysis of the mobile phone revealed an active Google Chrome internet browser page on the ‘Contact Us’ page for the Melbourne Hebrew Congregation website, into which the following details had been entered:

Your Name: Adolf Hitler
Your Email: [redacted]@yahoo.com
Subject (optional): Finish of [sic] what Hitler started
Message: [the text of the email message set out at paragraph 4 above]

The forensic analysis of the mobile phone also revealed the further material related to IS that had been downloaded to the device. The phone also contained photos and videos of the applicant, including the photos and video of the applicant posing with knives and a machete in a public bathroom that were posted to Instagram on 30 April 2025, as well as additional photos of the applicant posing with knives and machetes in another public bathroom on 24 April 2025. In another video on the phone, the applicant was depicted swearing the ‘Bay’ah’ to IS in English, which is alleged to be an oath of allegiance to a leader that is of fundamental importance within the jihadi movement. The phone also contained an eBay purchase history showing that the applicant had purchased a folding pocketknife and a machete on 2 April 2025, which were delivered on 3 April 2025 and 7 April 2025 respectively, as well as a further machete on 23 April 2025, which he had collected from a post office on 30 April 2025. Each of the items had been purchased using gift cards.

The mobile phone also contained a record of Telegram conversations between the applicant and an unidentified person to whom the applicant referred as ‘sheikh’ between 22 April 2025 and 21 May 2025. In these messages, the applicant introduced himself as a supporter of IS. On 10 May 2025, the applicant spoke of being ‘caught with 3 knifes and my phone in public’ and of taking caution so the ‘tyrants do not catch again’. On 11 May 2025, when asked by the unidentified person why he carried knives, the applicant said, ‘I carry it with me for protection in case I might need it at some time’, and referred to his plan to stab or at least threaten ‘a kafir in my community’ with a knife. On 15 May 2025, the applicant identified a 16 year old student at his school, who he described as ‘the agent of the kuffar’ and outlined his plan to stab him, a plan that he said he had been ’practicing and playing out’. He said, ‘I want to come over to the lands of Khilafah one day Sheikh’ and that he had ‘always dreamt of going to America under the guidance of Islamic State and committing jihad then Martyrdom’. On 20 May 2025, the unidentified person suggested that the applicant could try to recruit others into IS online, to which the applicant responded, ‘maybe I can threaten institution with fake attacks to instill [sic] fear into the kuffar’. The unidentified person told the applicant not to do that, because it would cause problems, and told the applicant to instead recruit others. On 21 May 2025, the applicant sent a message stating, ‘I will start searching for more brothers who want to support Khilafah and once I find them can I refer them to you?’. The unidentified person did not respond, and this was the end of the conversation.

On 31 May 2025, investigators obtained statements from staff at the educational institution attended by the applicant, which indicated that the applicant had attended classes on 1 May 2025 with a long narrow object tucked down the back of his pants, which he refused to identify. The applicant’s teacher believed that the object was a knife, and subsequently overheard other students discussing the applicant carrying a knife that day. Several students also raised concerns about conversations with the applicant in which he had spoken about joining gangs and purchasing a machete. The principal said he had raised these matters with the applicant’s parents, who said they would check the applicant each day before he went to class and remove any inappropriate items. They were unaware that the applicant had access to a personal mobile phone. The principal said that he had informed the applicant’s parents that the applicant was not welcome at campus at that stage and that he would be moved to online only classes.

Statutory framework and applicable legal principles
Commonwealth Crimes Act

Section 15AA of the Commonwealth Crimes Act provides that a bail authority must not grant bail to a person charged with a ‘terrorism offence’ unless the bail authority is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist to justify bail.[12] The provision has been described as enacting a rebuttable presumption against a grant of bail to a person charged with a terrorism offence.[13] A ‘terrorism offence’ is defined in s 3 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act to include ‘an offence against Subdivision HA of Division 474 of the Criminal Code’. The applicant is charged with two offences falling within that subdivision, being the offences the subject of charges 1 and 2. Therefore, I must refuse bail unless the applicant can satisfy me that there are exceptional circumstances to justify bail.
[12]Commonwealth Crimes Act, ss 15AA(1), (2)(a). A ‘bail authority’ means a court or person authorized to grant bail under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory: s 3(1) (definition of ‘bail authority’).
[13]Hammoud v DPP (Cth) [2006] VSC 516, [1] (Bongiorno J).

The term ‘exceptional circumstances’ is not defined, but has been interpreted as imposing a stringent test and ‘an extremely high hurdle’, although not an impossible one.[14] The onus is on an applicant to show that there is some situation that is out of the ordinary in some respect which he or she can point to as justifying the adjective ‘exceptional’.[15]
[14]DPP (Cth) v Khan [2021] VSC 224, [90] (Tinney J); R v NK [2016] NSWSC 498, [26] (Hall J).
[15]Hammoud v DPP (Cth) [2006] VSC 516, [3] (Bongiorno J).

The concept of exceptional circumstances is necessarily a flexible one, and exceptional circumstances may be constituted by a combination of matters taken together.[16] As the Court of Appeal observed in Roberts v The Queen, when considering the equivalent exceptional circumstances test in the Bail Act, certain types of circumstances recur as justifications for bail in ‘exceptional circumstances’ cases: unreasonable delay before trial; unacceptable adverse impacts of continued pre-trial incarceration; and the likelihood that time spent on remand will exceed any term of imprisonment which would be imposed in the event of conviction.[17] As the Court of Appeal there observed, what these different types of circumstances appear to have in common is that they are capable of rendering continued pre-trial incarceration unjust, notwithstanding the statutory prohibition on bail which otherwise applies.[18]
[16]Haddara v DPP (Cth) (2006) 159 A Crim R 489, 490 [5] (Osborn J); [2006] VSC 8.
[17]Roberts v The Queen [2021] VSCA 28, [9] (Maxwell P, Niall and Emerton JJA).
[18]Roberts v The Queen [2021] VSCA 28, [9] (Maxwell P, Niall and Emerton JJA).

Circumstances that comprise exceptional circumstances may also include the personal or subjective circumstances of an applicant, as well as the strength or weakness of the Crown case.[19] To the extent that delay before a matter will get to trial is relied on, it must be considered in light of the particular circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence the subject of the charge, bearing in mind that terrorism cases are likely to be ‘long and involved’.[20]
[19]R v NK [2016] NSWSC 498, [30]–[31] (Hall J).
[20]Re Kaya [2016] VSC 712, [40]–[41] (Elliott J); Re Brookman [2020] VSC 470, [11] (Jane Dixon J).

Section 15AA(3AA) prescribes certain matters that must be considered when determining whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify granting bail to a person who is under 18 years of age, namely that protection of the community is the paramount consideration and the best interests of the applicant is a primary consideration. It was common ground that this provision does not apply, given that the applicant has recently turned 18. However, the prosecution accepted that the applicant’s age, level of maturity and vulnerability are nonetheless relevant to the consideration of exceptional circumstances.[21]
[21]See R v NK [2016] NSWSC 498, [34]–[35], [41] (Hall J); AB v DPP (Cth) [2016] NSWSC 1042, [44] (Beech-Jones J).

Section 15AA(4) expressly preserves the application of State laws such as the Bail Act, except as otherwise provided. It follows that, even if the applicant establishes that there are exceptional circumstances justifying bail, I must still refuse bail if I am required to do so under the provisions of the Bail Act.

Before turning to the relevant provisions of the Bail Act, I note that s 15AB(1)(a) of the Commonwealth Crimes Act prescribes other matters that are to be taken into account in determining whether to grant bail to a person charged with an offence against a Commonwealth law, or in determining conditions to which any grant of bail should be subject. These matters concern the potential impact of granting bail on any person against whom the alleged offences were committed, and on any witness or potential witness in proceedings relating to the alleged offences. The prosecution’s position was that there was no evidence about any of these matters and that they were therefore not required to be taken into account on this application.

Bail Act

Pursuant to s 4E(1) of the Bail Act, I am required to refuse bail if I am satisfied, relevantly, that there is a risk that the applicant would, if released on bail:

(a) commit a Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 offence;[22]
[22]Being an offence identified in Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 to the Bail Act respectively.

(b) endanger the safety or welfare of any other person, whether by committing an offence that has that effect or by any other means;

(c) interfere with a witness or otherwise obstruct the course of justice in any matter; or

(d) fail to surrender into custody in accordance with the conditions of bail;

and that risk is an unacceptable risk.[23]

[23]Bail Act, ss 4E(1)(a)–(b).

The prosecution bears the burden of satisfying me as to the existence of such a risk, and that the risk is an unacceptable risk.[24]
[24]Bail Act, s 4E(2).

The Bail Act does not define ‘unacceptable risk’, but the concept has been applied in Victoria for many years. In determining whether a risk is unacceptable, I must take into account the ‘surrounding circumstances’ and consider whether there are any conditions of bail, including electronic monitoring conditions, that may be imposed to mitigate the risk so that it is not an unacceptable risk.[25] Section 3AAA(1) of the Bail Act contains a non-exhaustive list of surrounding circumstances which are to be taken into account.
[25]Bail Act, ss 4E(3)–(4).

Further, as the applicant is considered a child by law,[26] I am also required to take into account the ‘issues’ enumerated in s 3B(1) of the Bail Act. Pursuant to s 3B(2), I may also take into account any recommendation or information contained in a report provided by a bail support service when assessing the risk of releasing a child on bail.
[26]A child is, ‘in the case of a person who commits an offence or is alleged to have committed an offence, a person who … was under 18 years of age at the time of the commission or alleged commission of the offence’ and is not excluded by reason of being ’19 years of age or over at the time of the commencement of the proceeding for the offence or alleged offence’: Bail Act, s 3 (definition of ‘child’); Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, s 3(1) (definition of ‘child’); Youth Justice Act 2024, ss 4(2)–(3).

Finally, I must have regard to the guiding principles outlined in s 1B of the Bail Act. Following recent amendments to the Bail Act, I must have regard to the ‘overarching importance of maximising, to the greatest extent possible, the safety of the community and persons affected by crime’ when applying and interpreting the Bail Act.[27] I must also consider the following guiding principles:
[27]Bail Act, ss 1B(1AA), (2).

(a) the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty;

(b) the promotion of fairness, transparency and consistency in bail decision making; and

(c) the promotion of public understanding of bail practices and procedures.[28]

[28]Bail Act, s 1B(1).

The prosecution’s evidence

In opposing the application for bail, the prosecution relied on evidence from two witnesses:

(a) the informant, Senior Constable Sebastian Hindson of the Australian Federal Police (‘AFP’), who affirmed an affidavit dated 23 September 2025 and gave oral evidence; and

(b) Commander Nicholas Read, Commander of Counter Terrorism South within the AFP, who swore an affidavit dated 29 September 2025 and gave oral evidence.

Evidence of Senior Constable Hindson

In his affidavit, Senior Constable Hindson deposed to his belief that the applicant had not discharged the burden of satisfying the Court as to the existence of exceptional circumstances that justify the grant of bail, and to his belief that the applicant is an unacceptable risk of committing a Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 offence and endangering the safety or welfare of other persons. He stated that there were no conditions of bail that were capable of reducing the applicant’s risk to an acceptable level.

Senior Constable Hindson addressed the applicant’s personal circumstances, as well as various surrounding circumstances. Senior Constable Hindson deposed that:

(a) The charges are objectively serious and the impact of the threat to the Melbourne Hebrew Congregation was serious, particularly in the current climate, with members of the congregation providing witness statements that detail the impact of the threat upon them and their genuine fear that it would be carried out.

(b) The prosecution case is strong, with the evidence primarily coming from the social media content, messages, internet history and files located on the mobile phone found at the applicant’s home and registered in the applicant’s name, using his date of birth and home address. The applicant has admitted to police that the mobile phone was his, that he used it, and that no one else used it. The applicant had also admitted ownership of the Instagram account used to publish the material the subject of charge 1. The account on which that material was published was logged in on the mobile phone found at the applicant’s house. The completed ‘Contact Us’ form containing the message received by the Melbourne Hebrew Congregation was also found on the phone.

(c) The applicant has spent 132 days (4 months and 9 days) on remand as of 1 October 2025.

(d) There are no family violence intervention orders, family violence safety notices or recognised domestic violence orders made against the applicant.

(e) The applicant had previously been granted bail in relation to charges arising from another investigation, which were ultimately permanently stayed. The applicant was initially granted bail in relation to those charges on 8 October 2021, and made subject to the Youth Justice Supervised Bail program. On 15 October 2021, the Supreme Court refused an appeal from the decision to grant bail. On 23 June 2022, an application to revoke the applicant’s bail was refused. On 20 July 2022, a further application to revoke the applicant’s bail was granted. On 26 October 2022, the applicant was again granted bail. Further applications to revoke the applicant’s bail were refused on 21 April 2023 and 23 August 2023. Senior Constable Hindson’s affidavit annexed a number of affidavits filed in support of the various applications to revoke the applicant’s previous grants of bail, which detailed a series of incidents in which the applicant had failed to comply with his bail conditions, particularly the conditions that limited his access to the internet.

As to his belief that the applicant is an unacceptable risk of committing a Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 offence, Senior Constable Hindson said that when speaking to the ‘sheikh’ on Telegram on 20 May 2025, the ‘sheikh’ had explicitly told the applicant not to send threats to institutions to instil fear but to instead recruit others to IS’s cause. The applicant proceeded to send the threat to the Melbourne Hebrew Congregation the following day, which showed that he was willing to commit offences even when a person he ‘respected’ and ‘looked up to’ told him not to.

Senior Constable Hindson also deposed to the reasons why he believed the applicant is an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of other persons. He stated that:

(a) the applicant has a longstanding fixation with IS, an interest in knives and an interest in carrying out an attack, as shown by the handwritten messages located in his bedroom;

(b) although one knife that the applicant was seen holding in his Instagram posts has been located, two knives and two machetes depicted in those posts have not been located;

(c) the applicant has a repeated history of threatening behaviour and posting violent extremist material;

(d) treatment that the applicant had been receiving as part of his NDIS plan had not mitigated his risk;

(e) the applicant’s family had not engaged with the Countering Violent Extremism team and had actively stopped NDIS providers from supplying information to police about the applicant’s progress;

(f) a Victoria Police operational psychologist had previously expressed the view that there were no resources to treat the applicant’s combination of autism, cognitive impairment and ideologically motivated violence;

(g) during the search of the applicant’s family home, two knives had been located in a safe in the applicant’s parents’ bedroom, and the applicant’s father had told police that this had been done to limit the applicant’s access to knives;

(h) during the search of the applicant’s family home, the applicant’s father said that, to the best of his knowledge, the applicant did not have a mobile phone, and that his children were not allowed to have a mobile phone until they turned 18;

(i) the applicant has stated that he plans to commit a knife attack on a direct associate,[29] and has purchased knives and machetes in three eBay purchases, indicating he has the means and capability to carry out such an attack;
[29]I take this to be a reference to the 16 year old student that the applicant told the ‘sheikh’ he planned to stab: see [18] above.

(j) the applicant has sent threats to a vulnerable Jewish community, making that community feel unsafe and causing them to believe that an attack against their families would occur at their place of worship;

(k) the applicant had purchased knives and a machete and organised a mobile phone without his parents’ knowledge, all while receiving significant support and counselling via NDIS, indicating that those supports had not mitigated his risk and that there was limited control over the applicant’s actions;

(l) the applicant has carried knives on school grounds on multiple occasions, causing staff and students to feel unsafe; and

(m) the applicant has displayed verbal aggression, sexualised and violent comments and engaged in physical disruptions during his time on remand.

In relation to the applicant’s behaviour during his time on remand, Senior Constable Hindson annexed to his affidavit a bail service report prepared by Ms Maryann Lambert of Youth Justice on 30 June 2025 (the ‘June 2025 Report’).

I will return to the contents of that report, and an addendum report prepared by Ms Hayley Ellis of Youth Justice on 29 September 2025 (the ‘Addendum Report’) when considering the evidence of Ms Lambert and Ms Ellis, each of whom was called by the applicant to give evidence at the hearing.

In cross-examination, Senior Constable Hindson gave evidence that:

(a) the applicant has never been charged with any offences arising from the allegations relied on in support of the applications to revoke his previous grants of bail;

(b) the applicant spent 93 days on remand prior to the permanent stay of the previous charges;

(c) no member of the team that conducted the investigation leading to the current charges was involved with the investigation leading to the previous charges, which had commenced after the applicant’s parents went to the police and expressed concerns about the applicant’s online activities;

(d) the previous charges were permanently stayed in circumstances that the Children’s Court described as involving law enforcement using the guise of a rehabilitation service to entice the parents of a troubled child to engage in a process that resulted in potential harm to their child;

(e) prior to the commencement of the current investigation on 8 May 2025 by the Joint Counter Terrorism Team, Victoria Police had been investigating the applicant’s activities, although Senior Constable Hindson did not know for how long;

(f) from 9 May 2025, when extremist material was identified on the applicant’s Instagram account, careful attention was paid to what the applicant posted on that account;

(g) no surveillance warrant was obtained, no attempt was made to intervene and the applicant was not arrested until 13 days later, after the threat was made to the Melbourne Hebrew Congregation;

(h) the current concern that the applicant poses a danger to the community relates to the knives and machetes that the applicant is holding in his Instagram posts, as well as the threat he made to the Melbourne Hebrew Congregation, which also included a threat to the [redacted] Secondary School;

(i) in response to a suggestion that the applicant had engaged in online ‘fantasy’ and conveyed information to other people that was ‘just completely fanciful’, Senior Constable Hindson said that the Rabbi from the Melbourne Hebrew Congregation had been so frightened that an attack was going to happen at the Congregation that he had cried when giving his statement because he thought his family were going to die if they went to the synagogue that Friday;

(j) the applicant has at various points said that he is a bikie, that he has killed someone, that he has had sex with many people, and that he is involved in espionage, and has spoken about arrangements to join the French Foreign Legion, but none of these things are true;

(k) the applicant is currently being held in an environment with other children who tend to have committed fairly serious offences, to have very serious priors and to have engaged in antisocial conduct, which poses a particular risk to him given the references in the material to his impressionability;

(l) he had been told by the Director of Youth Justice prior to the previous bail hearing in connection with the current charges that there was a full suite of options available to persons in youth custody;

(m) the plan for supporting the applicant if he is released on bail is very detailed and includes programs that would be of benefit to the applicant;

(n) the applicant’s parents are law-abiding people with the best interests of their children at heart and who would make their best endeavours;

(o) the applicant does not have a job and there is no evidence that he would have access to money other than through pocket money from his parents, so it would be difficult for him to acquire another phone;

(p) if the position of the applicant’s parents was that they would not give the applicant a phone or access to an internet enabled device, that the internet would be shut off at night and the applicant would be required to sleep in their bedroom, this would go some way to assuaging his concerns in relation to the risk connected with the applicant’s internet access; and

(q) if the position of the applicant’s parents was that they would use a metal detector to give the applicant a ‘wanding’, this would assist his concerns about the applicant’s access to telephones and weapons.

In re-examination, Senior Constable Hindson reiterated that the applicant had previously been able to purchase weapons by using gift cards. He also reiterated that the applicant had previously had a mobile phone that his parents didn’t know about, which he had been using at all hours of the day and night to access various materials.

Evidence of Commander Read

Commander Read has been a member of the AFP for over 26 years, and the Commander of ‘Counter Terrorism South’ since 1 March 2023. In that role, he is responsible for coordinating and administering the Joint Counter Terrorism Teams and National Security Investigations Teams in Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, the Northern Territory and Western Australia. He has extensive policing and counter-terrorism experience. He is currently the lead representative for the AFP in the Investigations Support Capability Coordination and Countering Violent Extremism subcommittees of the Australia–New Zealand Counter-Terrorism Committee, and the AFP senior executive responsible for the development of the AFP’s Youth Strategy. In that latter role, he is supervising the development of a national approach to counter the prevalence of youth radicalisation.

Commander Read deposed that in addition to his substantive duties, he is familiar with and has joint oversight for the investigation conducted by the Victorian Joint Counter Terrorism Team concerning the applicant, which has led to the current charges.

Commander Read gave evidence about the activities of IS, particularly since the decline of IS’s caliphate in Iraq and Syria, which had led to a shift in the focus of IS towards returning foreign fighters and home-grown terrorism. Commander Read stated that IS inspires, encourages, enables and directs attacks internationally, ranging from ‘low capability’ attacks with knives or vehicles through to more complex attacks with firearms and explosives. He said that several well known speeches and publications by leaders of IS exhorted supporters in the West to kill disbelievers in the name of IS. Following explicit calls by IS to carry out attacks against civilian targets, attacks have been purposefully carried out with little warning in highly populated locations, and have generally involved readily available items such as knives, gas cylinders and vehicles, and little in the way of skill, specialised equipment, planning or resourcing.

Commander Read deposed that based on his operational experience and knowledge, individuals who view, create or share violent extremist material online can pose a real risk of engaging in ‘offline’ or ‘real world’ offending, including more serious terrorism offending. He said that the behaviour of such individuals can escalate very quickly, meaning police have limited opportunity to identify the individual and intervene.

Commander Read deposed to his concern that the applicant presented an unacceptable risk of committing a serious offence or otherwise endangering the safety and welfare of individuals in the community. He opined that the proposed electronic monitoring bail conditions would not mitigate this risk.

Commander Read stated that while the AFP is not opposed to electronic monitoring generally, he did not consider that an electronic monitoring device would sufficiently mitigate the risks posed by the applicant. He referred to a meeting with the Director of Youth Justice on 24 September 2025, in which the Director confirmed that the two main potential bail conditions that would result in an alert if the applicant was fitted with an electronic monitoring device were a curfew condition and an exclusion zone condition. Commander Read opined that electronic monitoring would not prevent the applicant from: accessing the internet to seek out and engage with radicalised individuals to encourage offending; possessing ‘edged’ weapons, which are readily available instruments that he has previously demonstrated a propensity to carry and produce in public places; influencing others or being the target of influence himself; planning for and engaging in violent acts that would not necessarily breach an exclusion zone or curfew condition; or carrying out an act of violence if he also intended to martyr himself. Commander Read referred to certain events in Australia where electronic monitoring devices had not deterred individuals from carrying out violent acts, including in the counter-terrorism context.

Commander Read expressed the view that there were various operational limitations with electronic monitoring undertaken by the Corrections Victoria Electronic Monitoring Service in consultation with Youth Justice, including limitations in relation to the frequency with which certain categories of alerts would be reported to Victoria Police. He opined that it was the Joint Counter Terrorism Team, who would not be responsible for monitoring the device, that was best placed to assess the severity of potential alerts, in the context of the overall risk posed by the applicant. He expressed a concern that there would be a risk of a significant delay between the applicant engaging in an apparent breach of bail event and the Joint Counter Terrorism Team becoming aware of that event.

Commander Read annexed to his affidavit a Protocol between Youth Justice and Victoria Police containing arrangements in relation to the Enhanced Bail Supervision and Support Trial. The Protocol contains a ‘Risk-based Response Framework’ for the management of electronic monitoring alerts. Pursuant to that framework, each alert is treated as requiring a tailored response, with the appropriate action varying based on the type of alert, the specific circumstances and the young person involved. Youth Justice staff are to exercise judgment and discretion when responding to each alert. To determine the appropriate level of action, alerts are to be categorised into five levels: minor, moderate, major, severe and imminent.

(a) ‘Minor’ alerts are low level alerts that are typically managed by the case management team or the Electronic Monitoring Service. Such alerts often arise from technical difficulties, such as a weak GPS signal or a low battery in the device. In these cases, the young person would be contacted to resolve the issue without the need for escalation.

(b) ‘Moderate’ alerts involve situations that require more attention and action, such as malfunctioning electronic monitoring equipment. In these cases, a more in depth review or inspection would be carried out.

(c) ‘Major’ alerts require immediate and coordinated action, involving escalation to a Youth Justice Team Manager, who would, in collaboration with the Electronic Monitoring Service, closely monitor the situation. Such alerts are more serious and may involve non-compliance with directions from Youth Justice or a potential breach of bail conditions, in circumstances that do not meet the threshold for a ‘Severe’ alert. Many ‘Major’ alerts could be handled internally through the Youth Justice warning process, but repeated non-compliance would trigger further intervention.

(d) ‘Severe’ alerts do not involve credible or immediate danger to either the safety of the young person or members of the public, but still require a response and/or action from Victoria Police. Such alerts would typically arise when there is a more serious, confirmed or suspected breach of a bail condition, or the young person is suspected to be involved in less serious offending behaviour. In these cases, the young person may not be contactable. In response, Youth Justice would escalate to Victoria Police for action by phoning ‘000’, classifying the alert as ‘Severe’ and responding to the ‘000’ structured call taking approach.

(e) ‘Imminent’ alerts are assessed as an emergency. They share similar criteria to a Severe alert but also require Youth Justice to assess that there is a credible or immediate danger either to the safety of the young person or members of the public. For example, an ‘Imminent’ alert may be triggered if a young person breaches an exclusion zone that is intended to protect a vulnerable victim and a risk assessment determines that the victim is in immediate danger. In such cases, Youth Justice would immediately notify Victoria Police by phoning ‘000’, classifying the alert as ‘Imminent’ and responding to the ‘000’ structured call taking approach. Escalation of ‘Imminent’ alerts is to occur in a timely manner.

The Protocol records that as part of this Risk-based Response Framework, Youth Justice has a 24/7 staffing model to ensure electronic monitoring alerts are actioned during business hours and after hours. Youth Justice is also to provide Victoria Police with a weekly summary report detailing all alerts. Victoria Police may also request an expedited summary from Youth Justice if required.

At the hearing, the prosecution adduced further evidence from Commander Read as to his understanding of the way electronic monitoring of the applicant would work, based on his meeting with the Director of Youth Justice and his understanding of the Protocol. Commander Read said that the monitoring would be conducted by Corrections Victoria, as part of their monitoring service located at Ravenhall. The monitoring would not be ‘live’ monitoring, in the sense of constant continued monitoring of the device. Only alerts would be monitored, although live monitoring could be available in some circumstances after consultation with Victoria Police, Youth Justice and Corrections Victoria.

Commander Read said that his understanding was that in the event of an alert, the monitoring service would notify the case worker at Youth Justice of the alert, who would then, in consultation with others, determine the level of the alert under the Risk-based Response Framework. He expressed concerns about the time it would take to make this determination. If, following a determination, an alert was notified to Victoria Police, the AFP would eventually be alerted through their relationship and protocols with Victoria Police. The AFP had no powers itself in relation to the monitoring of bail.

Commander Read said that there was the potential for issues to arise with the ability to obtain the necessary supervisor to consult and to then define an alert and make the decision to escalate the alert to Victoria Police. He said that there was also the potential for human error in relation to the passing on of information between individuals after an alert was received. Commander Read also expressed the view that if there was a ‘Major’ alert in relation to the applicant, such an alert should be required to be escalated to ‘000’, given the applicant’s previous circumstances.

In cross-examination, Commander Read accepted that he was not an expert on the Protocol. He also accepted that one of the purposes of electronic monitoring of the applicant would be to deal with the question of exclusion zones.

Commander Read said that he was concerned that in the present case electronic monitoring would not be able to ameliorate the risk posed by the applicant because the Joint Counter Terrorism Team relied on a mosaic of information and data to understand a person’s risk, behaviours and movements and to assess their trajectory towards violence and the need to respond to that risk.

Commander Read was asked a number of questions about the dangers of exposing vulnerable people to violent extremist material. He said that he was unaware of whether police had exposed the applicant to violent extremist material in the previous investigation. He said that neither he nor his team had been involved with that investigation, although he had read the decision of the Children’s Court to permanently stay the charges arising from that investigation. He said that the AFP had undertaken a review in relation to that matter and various findings had been made in terms of how the organisation engages individuals online.

In relation to the investigation leading to the current charges, Commander Read said that there would have been a lead up to that investigation, with information being passed to the Joint Counter Terrorism Team at some stage around 8 May 2025. He agreed that the Team would want to move very quickly once they had determined that a person is accessing extremist material, if they were on a trajectory towards violence.

Commander Read accepted that it was clear on 9 May 2025 that the applicant had accessed certain material, and that there was no move to intervene or arrest him at that time. He said that the applicant’s access to that material had not, by itself, meant that he needed to immediately be taken into custody.

Commander Read was asked whether the unidentified person with whom the applicant conducted conversations on Telegram, to whom he referred as ‘sheikh’, was a law enforcement operative. He said that he did not know, but that the person ‘wasn’t one of [his]’.

In re-examination, Commander Read said that the issue of the applicant viewing and possessing violent extremist material was not the only thing he had relied on in assessing the risk that the applicant’s conduct would translate to ‘real world offending’. He said he had also relied on the information that the applicant had acquired a number of weapons that were so far unaccounted for, including around three machetes, which were believed to have been hidden in public or outside of the home. He was also concerned about a number of threats the applicant had made during and after the investigation, which had been referred to by Youth Justice in its reports. He was further concerned about the applicant’s ongoing interest in terrorism ideology, particularly in relation to ISIS, and the nexus between those thoughts and some of the applicant’s threats to individuals in the community, including Youth Justice staff.

Applicant’s evidence

The applicant relied on evidence from four witnesses:

(a) Mr Nicholas Jane, the solicitor with carriage of the applicant’s matter, who affirmed four affidavits, dated 9 September 2025, 11 September 2025, 24 September 2025 and 1 October 2025;

(b) the applicant’s mother;

(c) Ms Hayley Ellis, an acting Team Leader within Youth Justice and the applicant’s case worker; and

(d) Ms Maryann Lambert, a Team Manager within the Enhanced Bail Supervision and Support program.

The applicant’s mother, Ms Ellis and Ms Lambert each gave oral evidence at the hearing. Mr Jane did not.[30]
[30]Mr Norton, who appeared for the applicant at the hearing, made an application at the start of the presentation of the applicant’s case for Mr Jane to appear to lead evidence from Ms Ellis and Ms Lambert, given his familiarity with Youth Justice processes. I granted the application, which was not opposed.

Evidence of Nicholas Jane

In his first affidavit, Mr Jane provided information about: the charges against the applicant; his age; his lack of prior convictions; his previous application for bail in relation to the current charges; and the applicable legal framework. Mr Jane annexed a Statement of Facts prepared by the AFP. He identified various matters relied on in support of the application for bail, including his view that the applicant would be unlikely to receive a term of imprisonment if found guilty of the offences.

Mr Jane deposed to his belief that the applicant’s prior involvement with the AFP was relevant to the risk that the applicant is alleged to pose. He annexed a copy of the decision of the Children’s Court to permanently stay the prior criminal charges against the applicant. That decision records that the applicant was charged in October 2021, shortly after he turned 14, with two offences that he was alleged to have committed between 19 September 2021 and 6 October 2021, when he was 13 years old. The charges were: one charge of intentionally being a member of an organisation, namely IS, knowing that the organisation was a terrorist organisation;[31] and one charge of advocating terrorism.[32] On 24 October 2023, a Magistrate in the Children’s Court permanently stayed the charges on the basis that the conduct of the Joint Counter Terrorism Team and the AFP, who had allowed a covert operative to engage the applicant while he was undergoing a rehabilitation program in order to further their investigation into his activities, fell ‘far short of the minimum standard that society expects of law enforcement officers’. The Court held that to allow the proceeding on the charges to continue would not only be unjustifiably and unfairly oppressive to the applicant, but would also lead to an erosion in public confidence in the Court’s processes, and effectively condone and encourage further instances of such conduct.[33]
[31]Contrary to s 102.3(1) of the Criminal Code.
[32]Contrary to s 80.2C(1) of the Criminal Code.
[33]DPP (Cth) v Carrick (a pseudonym) [2023] VChC 1, [82]–[83] (Magistrate Fleming).

Finally, Mr Jane proposed the following bail conditions:

(a) the applicant attend the Supreme Court at the next court date and then surrender himself, and not depart without the leave of the Court and, if leave is given, return at the time specified by the Court and again surrender himself into custody;

(b) the applicant reside as directed by Youth Justice and immediately present to any police officer who attends his residential address;

(c) the applicant abide by a curfew between the hours of 8 pm and 6 am, unless approved by Youth Justice and accompanied by a delegate of Youth Justice, including his parents;

(d) the applicant attend and comply with all directions of the Youth Justice Enhanced Bail Supervision and Support program;

(e) the applicant participate in treatment and rehabilitation programs as directed by Youth Justice;

(f) the applicant wear a Smart Tag for 24 hours each day;

(g) the applicant not, without reasonable excuse, tamper with, damage, disable or remove any Smart Tag or equipment used for electronic monitoring;

(h) the applicant not possess or attempt to buy any weapons, including knives or firearms;

(i) the applicant not use or access an internet enabled mobile phone, laptop, computer or tablet unless supervised by Youth Justice or a delegate of Youth Justice, including his parents;

(j) the applicant not access the internet, or cause others to access the internet on his behalf, unless supervised by Youth Justice or a delegate of Youth Justice, including his parents;

(k) the applicant not create, reactivate or log into any social media platforms;

(l) the applicant submit to the auditing of data held in computers or any other devices in his possession or control, if directed by Victoria Police or the AFP, for the purpose of conducting compliance checks;

(m) the applicant not be within 200 metres of the Melbourne Hebrew Congregation Synagogue;

(n) the applicant not attend or enter, except in the company of a parent or Youth Justice worker, any international airport or seaport, any kindergarten, primary school or secondary school or any place, shop, camping store, hardware store or similar facility where the reasonable person would expect machetes, weapons or ingredients for explosives could be located;

(o) the applicant not attend or go within 100 metres, except in the company of a parent or Youth Justice Worker, of [redacted] Secondary College; [redacted] Institute; an identified area around [redacted] Institute, [redacted] Shopping Centre, the City of Melbourne, and other specified areas that cover Jewish places of worship, schools, businesses and residences;

(p) the applicant be prohibited from communicating with (whether in person or online), or approaching within 100 metres of, certain people or groups of people, including any persons employed at or associated with the Melbourne Hebrew Congregation, any persons employed at or who are students of [redacted] Secondary College (other than his siblings) and any student currently enrolled in the Vocational Major Program at the [redacted] Institute, unless in the context of enrolled coursework and for the purpose of course requirements;

(q) the applicant notify the informant and the Joint Counter Terrorism Team of any paid or unpaid employment;

(r) the applicant only possess and use one mobile telephone, inclusive of one SIM card, that cannot access the internet, and notify the informant of the details of that mobile phone within 24 hours of bail being granted or the activation of the phone;

(s) the applicant notify the informant of any email account he uses within 24 hours of bail being granted or activation of the email address;

(t) the applicant not leave Australia or travel interstate, and surrender all passports; and

(u) the applicant attend for judicial monitoring at a frequency deemed appropriate by the Court.

In his second affidavit, Mr Jane provided the Court with the current charge sheets, as well as a certified extract of the order refusing the applicant bail on 10 July 2025, which records that bail was refused on the basis that there was an unacceptable risk that the applicant would endanger the safety or welfare of any person.

In his third affidavit, Mr Jane provided the Court with three psychological reports: a report of Mr Gavin Woolley dated 10 January 2025; a report of Dr Julianne Read dated 7 July 2022; and a report of Dr Kerry Slabak dated 17 August 2020.

(a) The report of Mr Woolley, prepared when the applicant was 17 years old, indicates that the applicant has been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder and a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by challenges in social communication and interaction, and has restricted and repetitive patterns of behaviour, interests or activities. Mr Woolley referred to the applicant’s reported behaviours of concern as including verbal aggression, social inappropriateness, absconding/leaving unsupported, and fixations on specific topics, such as terrorist groups. Mr Woolley opined that these behaviours stemmed from the applicant’s difficulties in communication, emotional regulation and social integration, and from seeking connection, rather than being driven by harmful intentions or ideation.

(b) The report of Dr Read was prepared when the applicant was 14 years old and on bail in respect of the charges that were permanently stayed. Dr Read opined that the applicant’s interest in violent extremism could best be understood in the context of his autism diagnosis, his limited cognitive functioning and associated difficulties, including his delayed moral development and a process in which prolonged social isolation and repeated exposure to influences online had led him to become morally disengaged from mainstream values. Further, Dr Read said that the applicant had demonstrated a history of susceptibility to suggestion and would begin to internalise a view when told something enough. She opined that the applicant’s long history of social isolation and a desperate unmet need to feel a sense of belonging or acceptance amongst his wider peer group had also resulted in a vulnerability to exploitation by others in real life and online.

(c) The report of Dr Slabak, prepared when the applicant was 12 years old, indicates that the applicant was previously diagnosed with a mild intellectual disability. Dr Slabak recorded that the applicant’s parents became concerned about the applicant’s development when he was around six or eight months old. He had delayed speech and language milestones. At four years and 11 months old, the applicant’s full scale IQ was assessed to be in the ‘extremely low’ range and he diagnosed with a mild intellectual disability. However, at the time of Dr Slabak’s report, the applicant’s cognitive assessment results reflected a significant increase in his full scale IQ and he no longer met the criteria for a diagnosis of intellectual disability. Dr Slabak said that the applicant experienced mild deficits in his overall functioning, with his socialisation skills being an area of weakness. She said that his adaptive behaviour deficits may have been attributable to his autism diagnosis.

In his fourth affidavit, Mr Jane provided information about upcoming court and assessment dates. Mr Jane deposed that the applicant’s matter was listed for a mention on 2 October 2025, which was to be adjourned pending disclosure and a psychological report. As a result of a request made on 23 June 2025, some disclosure in the matter remained outstanding. Mr Jane deposed that the applicant has a psychological assessment on 25 November 2025, which will provide clarity on his capability to form the requisite intention for charges 3 and 4, and whether the matter will be contested or capable of resolution. Mr Jane deposed that in the event the matter resolves, it is likely that psychological, psychiatric and neuropsychological reports would be required for any plea hearing, and that the current wait time for a normal neuropsychological assessment funded by Victoria Legal Aid is generally five to six months, although the complexity of the assessment in this matter might extend that period. Mr Jane opined that it is very unlikely that the matter would finalise within the next nine months, even if it resolved at the mention stage.

Evidence of the applicant’s mother

The applicant’s mother gave evidence that she was born in Pakistan and came to Australia in 2006. She gave a brief explanation of the applicant’s childhood and his earlier involvement with police. She said that the applicant had been bullied ever since he started school, both physically and verbally. She said that due to his autism, her son didn’t know or have the skills to protect himself. He had been diagnosed when he was three and had severe behavioural issues. He had always struggled to have friends. She said that after some children at school started to tell him things like, ‘You can be a good terrorist one day’ and ‘You can be Osama bin Laden’, the applicant started searching what that meant and thought it might be a good way to push the bullies away from him. After he tested this, some of the children stopped bullying him, while others enjoyed it and encouraged him. This ultimately led to the applicant’s mother and father reporting him to police in 2021 to seek help for his behaviour.

The applicant’s mother said that after they went to the police, the police ‘groomed’ the applicant, exposing him to ‘new enemies’ and material. Although the previous set of charges against the applicant were permanently stayed, she and her husband were then left with a child who was in a much more serious position than before. She said that the previous proceedings left the applicant very broken, and that this was exacerbated when he was detained by immigration officials at Singapore Airport while on a family holiday. They had organised a family trip to give the applicant a new perspective and to keep him engaged. On arrival, the applicant was taken to an interrogation room, accompanied by his father. He was questioned and the investigation went for about five and a half hours. They were told that there was an alert on the applicant’s passport and he was refused entry to Singapore. They were then deported back to Australia. The applicant was in really bad shape after this. His dream was to travel the world. He blamed himself for his family’s suffering. Since that time, the applicant had been seeing Mr Woolley. They had also contacted the Attorney-General and other ministers and senators about what had happened in Singapore, which they considered to be a human rights issue.

The applicant’s mother also gave evidence about her willingness and capacity, and her husband’s willingness and capacity, to supervise the applicant if he was released on bail. She said that the applicant would live in the family home. She said that one of her three other children, who is 15 years old, had also been diagnosed with autism and was no longer able to walk. He receives assistance from the NDIS, who can come to their house daily to provide assistance. The applicant’s mother said she is employed full-time as a structural engineer, and works from the office once a fortnight and from home the remainder of the time. Her husband works full-time as a manager for the works department of a local council. His working hours are quite flexible, and he is able to make up any missed hours on the weekend, or by starting early. He is always at home.

The applicant’s mother said that if the applicant is granted bail, she is confident that there is no chance that he would be left unsupervised or that he would be accessing the internet. She said that the applicant would be supervised by support services, herself or her husband. In non-working hours, she and her husband would be available full-time and they are devoted parents. They would arrange for the applicant to sleep with them in their bedroom. She said that prior to going into custody, the applicant had never left the home at night, and he had never run away, hidden or disappeared while he was with her or her husband. When asked about previous incidents where the applicant had left the company of his support workers without permission, the applicant’s mother said that he ’mostly did that maybe to test his limits’ and that he had not gone out anywhere and endangered anybody.

In relation to ensuring that the applicant would not have access to the internet or internet enabled devices, the applicant’s mother said that they had the internet connected at home, but she would place all their internet enabled devices, as well as the internet modem, in a safe at around 10 pm or 10:30 pm every evening, before going to bed. The devices would remain in the safe until the morning. She said that the family had four laptops (one of which is used by her younger son for his schooling), two mobile phones and one iPad. All these devices would be locked with codes, which the applicant did not have. The applicant’s mother said that none of her children are encouraged or allowed to have a mobile phone because of what has happened to their family.

When asked about occasions when the applicant had accessed the internet in breach of his bail conditions in relation to the previous charges, the applicant’s mother said that she could recall an occasion when the applicant accessed a laptop or other device at school. She said that this had happened because the school wasn’t suitable for him and he wasn’t settling in. She said that it was because of the applicant’s autism and that he was not mature enough to understand what he was doing. When asked about whether she accepted that the applicant had the Wi-fi password for the home modem while on bail previously, the applicant’s mother said she could change the password this time.

The applicant’s mother accepted that she and her husband were not aware that the applicant had the phone that the police found in the search of their house. She accepted that the applicant had hidden the phone, as well as knives, from them. She said that the applicant was 18 years old, not a three year old, and he ‘would live his life as for all wishes all the time’. She also said that she and her husband had always done their best to supervise and monitor the applicant’s activities, but there were no bail conditions at that time and now they would be more careful. She said that the applicant’s previous source of money to buy things like a phone was his pocket money. She did not know that he had any gift cards. She said that she and her husband would not give the applicant any pocket money if he is granted bail, and that he would not have any other source of money.

In terms of the applicant’s access to knives, the applicant’s mother said that they had a kitchen knife at home, which they would also put in the safe before going to bed. She said that she and her husband had acquired a metal detector, and that they planned to search the applicant with the detector before he leaves the home, so as to mitigate ‘their’ concerns, although she was sure her son wouldn’t do ‘anything stupid like that’.

The applicant’s mother also gave evidence about the applicant’s education and schooling. She said that prior to his arrest in May 2025, he had been enrolled in a TAFE course at [redacted] TAFE. Since being on remand, he had missed a lot of coursework. She said that the TAFE was willing to provide all the material that the applicant had missed in hard copy and that once he had completed all those tasks, then he would either start online learning or go back to the campus. She said that if the applicant were to start online learning, her husband would be able to take time off from work and directly supervise the applicant by sitting next to him while he completed his online studies.

When asked about how she and her husband would manage their own wellbeing given their proposed role in the supervision and monitoring of the applicant if granted bail, the applicant’s mother said that the applicant is the most important thing to them at the moment, and that giving him the comfort of being with his parents will be good for their own wellbeing. She said that the arrangement for the applicant to sleep in their room would be to give him initial support but would not be for an indefinite period of time. She said that she and her husband would have respite from their supervisory roles when other services were supporting the applicant. The applicant’s mother said that she had been in regular contact with the applicant since he had been in custody, and expressed the view that he had been in custody, isolated, for too long and that his mental health had deteriorated so much.

Finally, the applicant’s mother said that she was aware that the applicant would be on very strict conditions if released on bail and undertook to notify the police if she became aware of a breach. She said that she and her husband are responsible citizens and that they abide by the law.

Evidence from Youth Justice
June 2025 Report

In the June 2025 Report, Youth Justice advised that the applicant had been assessed as suitable for the Youth Justice Bail Service and recommended that if bail is granted, he be made subject to the Enhanced Bail Supervision and Support program, with electronic monitoring. Youth Justice recommended that any grant of bail be subject to restrictive bail conditions that seek to minimise his exposure to high risk situations and increase his exposure to therapeutic interventions. The conditions proposed by Youth Justice appear to be the basis for the proposed bail conditions set out in Mr Jane’s first affidavit.

In making these recommendations, Youth Justice indicated that various factors had been taken into account, including: the seriousness and context of the alleged offending; the fact that the applicant had not previously been sentenced to any Youth Justice order; the applicant’s complex disability diagnosis; the applicant’s limited insight into his conditions; and various protective factors that were in place, including the applicant’s stable accommodation, positive family supports and access to therapeutic and rehabilitative supports through the NDIS and Youth Justice.

In relation to the applicant’s disability diagnosis, the June 2025 Report recorded that the applicant had been a participant of the NDIS scheme since 2021. Youth Justice referred to a report from Mr Woolley in which Mr Woolley had described the applicant’s behaviours of concern (including his fixation on terrorist groups) as ‘not driven by harmful intentions but rather difficulties in expressing his emotions and social integration’.[34] However, Youth Justice recorded that in a discussion with Mr Woolley on 12 June 2025, Mr Woolley had reflected that although the applicant’s behaviours of concern had previously been seen as maladaptive means of coping with bullying and a diminished capacity to navigate the social environment, his behaviour was now ‘defensive’ and no longer done due to boredom or an inability to engage with peers. Instead, Mr Woolley said, ‘[i]t appears his level of intent has increased’.
[34]This report is described in the June 2025 Report as a report dated 11 April 2025. No report bearing this date was provided to the Court and the applicant’s legal representatives advised that they did not have such a report. Given that the text quoted by Youth Justice also appears in Mr Woolley’s report dated 10 January 2025, it is possible that the reference by Youth Justice to the 11 April 2025 report was intended to be a reference to the 10 January 2025 report.

Youth Justice noted that the applicant’s complex needs impacted his ability to understand the requirements of his bail conditions, and observed that the additional controls of Enhanced Bail Supervision and Support and electronic monitoring would require constant testing and reinforcement to ensure that he is not overwhelmed or increasingly deflated, leading to feelings of frustration and disempowerment. Youth Justice noted that the applicant had expressed concern that the Enhanced Bail Supervision and Support program would be as restrictive as his previous experience with Intensive Bail, stating that this period of bail had been challenging.

In relation to the applicant’s family supports, Youth Justice noted that when in the community, the applicant resided in his familial home with his father, mother and three younger brothers, one of whom has a diagnosis of severe Autism Spectrum Disorder, resulting in non-ambulatory status. Youth Justice said that the applicant’s parents had expressed their unwavering support for the applicant upon his release. The applicant’s parents had previously identified early signs of the applicant’s non-compliance with bail conditions and encouraged his adherence to bail compliance plans. However, Youth Justice acknowledged that they were managing a range of significant responsibilities, including employment obligations, the care of two children with disabilities and the ongoing demands of family life.

In relation to the applicant’s engagement with Youth Justice, Youth Justice noted that the applicant had struggled to interact with peers and to cope with the dynamics of the custodial environment. His lack of emotional regulation and poor impulse control, combined with his inability to communicate effectively when frustrated or feeling socially awkward, had resulted in him making derogatory, offensive, racist, sexualised and violent remarks and threats to his peers and custodial staff on several occasions. He had been involved in multiple incidents involving both custodial staff and fellow young people, including an occasion where he had ‘trashed the kitchen’.

Addendum Report

In the Addendum Report, Youth Justice advised that since the bail application in the Children’s Court on 4 July 2025, a number of behaviours of concern had emerged, which impacted the assessment of the applicant’s suitability for the Youth Justice Bail Service. As a result of those behaviours of concern, the applicant was now assessed as unsuitable for the Youth Justice Bail Service.

The matters referred to in the Addendum Report include the following:

(a) On 25 September 2025, while discussing strategies to support his compliance, the applicant said that he had not previously done well on Supervised Bail because he had become ‘bored’ of Youth Justice and ‘frustrated’ because his involvement had gone on for too long. The applicant disclosed that he had brought knives to Youth Justice appointments due to boredom and frustration, and he felt that Youth Justice didn’t understand him. When this topic was explored further, the applicant said that a better strategy to prevent him from bringing knives to supervision appointments with Youth Justice would be to ‘tell you to fuck off’. He said that he would prefer his workers to find him to be disrespectful because then he would not need to ‘threaten’ anyone to obtain a new case manager. The applicant said that he had intended to hurt his previous case manager, and had felt that way for the past two to three years. He said he had felt fixated on her, and that the only way in which he might be able to end this fixation was to kill her. These statements were made in the context of two incidents that had occurred during the applicant’s previous time on bail, where he had attempted to take a Stanley knife from Bunnings while he was with his case worker, and where he had said during a scheduled appointment, in relation to Youth Justice workers, that he wanted to ‘kill them all, no mercy, no remorse’. During that appointment, the applicant had also attempted to take a laptop from a Sheikh who was present and said that he had a knife, although he ultimately did not produce one. I interpose to note that this incident led to the application to revoke the applicant’s bail that was refused on 21 April 2023.

(b) Also on 25 September 2025, the applicant said that he wanted to learn Russian, that he enjoys everything about Russia, that Putin was his favourite person, that he was fixated with the KGB and with the President of China, and that one day he might be seen in custody for ‘espionage’.

(c) In relation to the applicant’s time in custody, Youth Justice provided an update from the Classification and Placement Unit. The applicant had been involved in eight formal incidents since 4 July 2025. He had continuously made racist, sexist and homophobic comments towards unit staff and stakeholders. There had been several attempted security breaches and he had used physical force to push past staff. His behaviour had escalated at the end of August, when he was involved in two incidents. In one incident, he had dragged a female staff member by her belt in an attempt to remove her keys. In the other, he had pushed two staff members while trying to force his way into an office to get to another staff member who he was threatening.

(d) Further, staff had located notebooks in the applicant’s bedroom, which he had used to express his thoughts. An entry for 16 September 2025 was entitled, ‘My Death Speech’, and recorded that the applicant would be assassinated by the US army for commanding the death of tens of thousands of US, Indian and Australian troops and that the Russian, Iranian and Chinese armies were at the applicant’s command. An entry for 19 September 2025 referred to the applicant spending his 18^th birthday in custody and recorded that he would return to ‘shoot up’ the Youth Justice precinct.

(e) Youth Justice stated that in addition to his disability, the applicant’s age and stage of adolescent development mean that he is impulsive, immature in his decision-making, lacks consequential thinking, is impressionable and has limited social awareness. He has a ‘complex presentation’, and a referral has been submitted to the ‘Complex Needs Panel’, for which the applicant has been waitlisted.

(f) Youth Justice also referred to the fact that, after becoming aware of the new machete restrictions in Victoria, the applicant had disclosed the last known whereabouts of a machete and pocketknife that he had left in a public area at a public library. The authors observed that the applicant had appeared conflicted about disclosing this information, as he felt that it would be a ‘waste’ of his money. He said that he had no intention of accessing or possessing any additional weapons.

Youth Justice also provided the Court with a letter that the applicant had written to Youth Justice to be provided to the Court. Youth Justice regarded this letter, in which the applicant referred to his Instagram account, as relevant to the applicant’s suitability for the Youth Justice Bail Service, given the limited ability of Youth Justice to monitor and manage the social media and technology conditions of bail. In the letter, the applicant also referred to Youth Justice and NDIS ‘ruining’ his previous time on bail. He wrote about his time in custody being especially difficult as a person with autism.[35]
[35]Although Youth Justice provided this letter to the Court, neither party sought to tender it.

Evidence of Hayley Ellis

Ms Ellis gave evidence that she has been the applicant’s Youth Justice case worker since 1 August 2025. She gave evidence about the Enhanced Bail Supervision and Support program, which she described as the highest tier of support for children on bail. She said that if the applicant was released on bail, he would have access to a care team (comprising a senior support coordinator at Yooralla, a speech pathologist, an occupational therapist, a positive behaviour support practitioner, and the director of an NDIS support agency), two additional support workers and Enhanced Bail Supervision and Support case officers. Ms Ellis’s role would be to have supervision meetings twice weekly with the applicant, to coordinate the care team, to ensure any risks are addressed and to consult with any third parties if there was an increasing risk or a breach of bail conditions.

Ms Ellis was asked about the Addendum Report, which she had authored. She said that after Youth Justice was notified of this application for bail, there were further and more detailed discussions amongst the applicant’s care team regarding his ability to abide by the proposed bail conditions and the risks of him being in the community. Those discussions led to the preparation of the Addendum Report, which assessed the applicant as unsuitable for any of the bail support services offered by Youth Justice, including the Enhanced Supervision and Support program, with or without electronic monitoring. Ms Ellis gave the following additional evidence in relation to the Addendum Report:

In making my determination that there is a risk that the applicant would, if released on bail, endanger the safety or welfare of other people and that he would commit a Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 offence, I have taken into account the issues pertaining to children that are identified in s 3B of the Bail Act. In particular, I have taken into account: the applicant’s age, lack of maturity and stage of development at the time of the alleged offending; the need to impose on the applicant the minimum intervention required in the circumstances; the need to preserve the applicant’s relationship with his parents; the importance of supporting the applicant to live at home and engage in education or work; the need to minimise the stigma to the applicant resulting from being remanded; the fact that time in custody has been shown to pose criminogenic risks for children, including a risk of becoming further involved in the criminal justice system and a risk of harm; the fact that the applicant is from a culturally and linguistically diverse background, and that children in such a cohort may experience discrimination resulting in over-representation in the criminal justice system; the fact that the applicant may spend more time on remand than pursuant to any sentence he might ultimately receive; each of the applicant’s diagnosed conditions, his cognitive impairment and his developmental delay, and the potential relationship between these matters and the alleged offending and his other behaviours of concern; and the trauma the applicant has experienced as a result of the way the previous investigation was conducted in 2021, including his time on remand, his extended period on strict bail conditions and the events that occurred in Singapore approximately two years ago.

(b) Whether the risk is unacceptable

Having determined that the applicant is a risk of endangering the safety and welfare of other persons and of committing a Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 offence, the question that then arises is whether the risks I have identified are unacceptable. As I have said, in making this assessment, I am required to take into account any relevant surrounding circumstances, including those identified in s 3AAA(1) of the Bail Act, and to consider whether there are any conditions of bail that may be imposed to mitigate the risks so that they are not unacceptable risks.[47] Given the applicant’s status as a child, I am also required to again take into account the issues identified in s 3B of the Bail Act.
[47]Bail Act, s 4E(3).

Whether a risk is unacceptable will generally depend not only upon the likelihood of the risk becoming reality, but also on the seriousness of the consequences if it does. It is the combination of the nature and gravity of the risk and the magnitude of harm that may result that determines whether the risk is of a sufficient order to render it unacceptable.[48]
[48]See, in a different statutory context, the observations in Nigro v Secretary to the Department of Justice (2013) 41 VR 359, 389 [111], 391 [117] (Redlich, Osborn and Priest JJA); [2013] VSCA 213.

This approach to the question of unacceptable risk has been applied in the terrorism setting. For example, in AB v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth),[49] the applicant for bail was a 17 year old child who had been diagnosed with an intellectual disability and Asperger’s syndrome. He faced a charge of doing an act in preparation for a terrorist act; and a charge of using a telecommunications network with intention to commit a serious offence, both contrary to the Criminal Code. The offences related to a series of posts that the applicant had published on a website, which revealed that he intended to attack members of the public with a knife in a suicidal attack in a crowded public area in Sydney. In refusing the application for bail, Beech-Jones J made the following observations:

One aspect of the application of a test of unacceptable risk is an assessment of the consequences of the relevant risk materialising together with the likelihood of it materialising. The assessment of whether the risk is unacceptable is also informed by the deleterious effect of refusing bail on the accused person, which in this case is significant. The acute difficulty for [the applicant] on this application is that, while the likelihood of him giving effect to his threats is relatively low, the consequences if he did so are likely to be horrific.[50]

[49][2016] NSWSC 1042.

[50]AB v DPP (Cth) [2016] NSWSC 1042, [55].

Similarly, in Re Brookman, an application for bail by an adult who had been charged with providing support or resources to a terrorist organisation and performing services in support or promotion of an offence against s 6 of the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978 (Cth), Jane Dixon J considered that ‘although the likelihood of the applicant carrying out a terrorist act whilst on bail may not be great, the potentially horrific consequences of such a risk eventuating render the existing risk unacceptable’.[51]
[51][2020] VSC 470, [131] (Jane Dixon J).

The observations of Beech-Jones J and Jane Dixon J are apposite in this application.

Turning then to the surrounding circumstances identified in s 3AAA(1), I have again considered the disposition that the applicant is likely to receive if found guilty of the alleged offending, and that any custodial disposition that the applicant ultimately receives may not exceed his time spent on remand.[52] As it was in my assessment of exceptional circumstances, this matter is a weighty consideration in my assessment of unacceptable risk, as is the fact that it is presently unknown how long the applicant is likely to spend in custody if bail is refused.[53] The proceeding is at an early stage and the applicant will not undergo a scheduled psychological assessment until the end of November 2025.
[52]Bail Act, ss 3AAA(1)(aa) and (l).
[53]Bail Act, s 3AAA(1)(k).

As to the nature and seriousness of the alleged offending,[54] the offences with which the applicant has been charged are objectively serious. That is reflected in the maximum penalties that attach to each of the offences, which range from 5 to 10 years’ imprisonment. Acts of terrorism are difficult to predict or prevent, and can have devastating consequences.[55] The publication of violent extremist material is inherently serious conduct, both because it promotes the activities and objectives of terrorist organisations, and because it can quickly escalate to ‘real world’ acts of terrorism. The conduct that is the subject of charges 3 and 4, which involved threatening a Jewish congregation that a shooter would come into their synagogue at night and shoot everyone dead, is a serious example of the relevant offences, particularly in the current climate.
[54]Bail Act, s 3AAA(1)(a).
[55]See Re Brookman [2020] VSC 470, [129] (Jane Dixon J).

As to the strength of the prosecution case,[56] I accept the prosecution’s submission that its case is strong. Mr Norton accepted so much, insofar as the prosecution alleges that the applicant engaged in each of the relevant acts. The applicant has admitted to owning and being the sole operator of the phone on which the material that is the subject of charge 2 was found. He has admitted that the Instagram account on which the material that is the subject of charge 1 was posted is his account. The email containing the threat to kill that is the subject of charges 3 and 4 was found in an online form on his phone.
[56]Bail Act, s 3AAA(1)(b).

As to the applicant’s criminal history,[57] he has no prior convictions.
[57]Bail Act, s 3AAA(1)(c).

As to the extent to which the applicant has complied with the conditions of his earlier grants of bail,[58] the informant’s evidence contained details of multiple instances on which the applicant failed to comply with previous bail conditions. As a result of these instances of non-compliance, four applications were made to revoke the applicant’s previous grants of bail, one of which was successful. The affidavits annexed to the informant’s affidavit establish the following:
[58]Bail Act, s 3AAA(1)(d).

(a) The first application to revoke the applicant’s bail, which was refused on 23 June 2022, was brought on the basis that the applicant had failed to comply with conditions of bail that required him not to access the internet except for limited purposes, including for his schooling or as agreed by Youth Justice, and that required him not to access any material relating to terrorist attacks, firearms, executions, armed conflicts or the activities of terrorist organisations. There was evidence that the applicant had breached these conditions by conducting internet searches and accessing material on his school computer that included images of persons with firearms and an image of the IS flag. The applicant’s search history evidenced access to websites concerning violent criminal offences and terrorism, as well as searches on how to clear router history and bypass firewalls. Although the application to revoke bail was refused, the applicant’s conditions of bail were varied. He was prohibited from accessing the internet or causing any other person to access the internet on his behalf except for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, attending court and watching a streaming service at home with his parents or siblings.

(b) The second application to revoke the applicant’s bail, which was granted on 20 July 2022, was brought on the basis that the applicant had failed to comply with his conditions of bail by taking another student’s iPad to the bathroom at school and using it to conduct internet searches and to attempt to send an email to police. The evidence is that the subject matter of the internet searches included ’10 ways to cover up a murder’, ‘how to murder’ and ’16 steps to kill someone and not get caught’. The internet searches and the email contained a reference to one of the applicant’s teachers. Police also located a handwritten note that indicated the applicant had successfully obtained his home Wi-fi password, as well as information from the applicant’s school that suggested the applicant had used his brother’s internet enabled device.

(c) The third application to revoke the applicant’s bail, which was refused on 21 April 2023 (following a grant of ‘Intensive Bail’ on strict conditions on 26 October 2022) was brought on the basis that the applicant had been in a physical altercation with a female Youth Justice worker over a Youth Justice owned laptop. There was evidence that the applicant had attempted to grab the laptop from the Youth Justice worker and that a physical struggle ensued as the Youth Justice worker attempted to retrieve the laptop. There was evidence that during the struggle, the applicant had said, ‘What if I have a knife on me?’. Following this incident, Youth Justice expressed concerns about the applicant’s unstable behaviour, which they considered was escalating. Youth Justice indicated that they were no longer comfortable that they were equipped with sufficient plans and strategies to mitigate the risks posed by the applicant.

(d) The fourth application to revoke the applicant’s bail, which was refused on 23 August 2023, was brought on the basis of four incidents in which the applicant had breached a condition that he not be absent from his home unless accompanied by a parent or adult approved by Youth Justice. On each occasion, the applicant had run away from or left his disability support workers without their knowledge or consent. The first incident involved the applicant running away from his disability support worker while they were at a public library and going to a nearby high school. While at the school, the applicant was approached by teachers and asked to leave. The teachers felt uncomfortable in his presence and were concerned that he was concealing something in his pocket, commenting that he had his left hand in his pocket throughout their engagement with him. The second incident involved the applicant running away from his support worker while they were in the waiting room for a psychologist appointment. The third and fourth incidents occurred when the applicant was at a gym with a support worker. On the first of these occasions, he left the gym via a back door that was not generally used. On the second, he left via a fire door at the rear of the building, after indicating that he needed to go to the bathroom.

I accept that the applicant was not charged in relation to any of the instances of non-compliance with his previous bail conditions. However, I consider that the applicant’s repeated failures to comply with conditions of his bail, which occurred over an extended period of time, are a significant matter in my assessment of unacceptable risk. They are relevant to the applicant’s likely compliance with any future conditions of bail.

Returning to the surrounding circumstances identified in s 3AAA(1), I note that the applicant was not on bail or subject to any other order at the time of the alleged offending,[59] nor is there any family violence intervention order or family violence safety notice concerning the applicant that is in force.[60]
[59]Bail Act, s 3AAA(1)(e).
[60]Bail Act, s 3AAA(1)(f).

As to the applicant’s personal circumstances, associations, home environment and background,[61] the evidence establishes that the applicant has a supportive family and secure accommodation. If released on bail, he would live with his parents and three siblings, one of whom also has special needs that require considerable support and assistance. I will return to the proposed role of the applicant’s parents in the event of a grant of bail.
[61]Bail Act, s 3AAA(1)(g).

As to the applicant’s special vulnerabilities,[62] the applicant is a child who suffers from a cognitive impairment and has been diagnosed with multiple complex conditions, including autism. Youth Justice have described the applicant as impulsive, immature in his decision-making, lacking consequential thinking and impressionable. The applicant has experienced a number of difficulties in his life to date, including bullying, social isolation and disconnection from his peers. In 2022, Dr Read opined that the applicant had a history of susceptibility to suggestion and a vulnerability to exploitation by others in real life and online. In January 2025, Mr Woolley opined that the applicant’s behaviours of concern, including verbal aggression, social inappropriateness, absconding and fixating on terrorist groups, were not driven by harmful intentions or ideation but by difficulties in communication, emotional regulation and social integration. However, more recently, Mr Woolley has described the applicant’s behaviours as ‘defensive’, and as no longer being something the applicant does due to boredom and an inability to engage with peers. Instead, Mr Woolley has said that the applicant’s level of intent has increased. I acknowledge that the applicant’s time in custody has been especially difficult for him as a person with autism. However, I note that the applicant has recently been placed in a more settled unit that has been handpicked for him.
[62]Bail Act, s 3AAA(1)(h)

As to the availability of treatment or bail support services,[63] the evidence from Youth Justice is that if the applicant is released on bail, he will be provided with an extensive and tailored support program as part of the Enhanced Bail Supervision and Support program, which will be coordinated by a multidisciplinary care team. The support services within that program include speech therapy, occupational therapy, recreational and social supports, positive behaviour support, employment pathways and support from disability services. However, while this program will be made available to the applicant in the event of a grant of bail, it is important to note that, as of 29 September 2025, Youth Justice has assessed the applicant to be unsuitable for the Youth Justice Bail Service.
[63]Bail Act, s 3AAA(1)(i).

As to the availability of Part 2A conditions, being conditions related to electronic monitoring,[64] although the applicant has been assessed as unsuitable for any form of Youth Justice’s bail service, the evidence from Youth Justice is that if he is granted bail, he remains suitable for an electronic monitoring condition. He has undergone a sensory assessment, which established that he is able to tolerate wearing such a device, and he has given his consent to participate in the Enhanced Bail Supervision and Support program with electronic monitoring. The applicant’s parents have also consented to participating in the program and their home environment has been found suitable for the purposes of electronic monitoring. I have taken into account Commander Read’s concerns about the operational limitations of electronic monitoring in the circumstances of this case, as well as the evidence of Ms Lambert about how the electronic monitoring system has worked with children to date, and how she envisages it would work in the case of the applicant.
[64]Bail Act, ss 3AAA(1)(ia), 17E. This application for bail is an ‘applicable decision within the meaning of Part 2A’ of the Bail Act because: the applicant is of an eligible age, being 18 years of age at the time this decision is made and under 18 years of age at the time of the alleged offending; this application is being heard in the Supreme Court; and this decision is being made before the second anniversary of the commencement of Part 2A: ss 17D(2), (4).

As to the view or likely view of an alleged victim of the offending on the grant of bail or conditions of bail,[65] there was no evidence before me about any of these matters.
[65]Bail Act, s 3AAA(1)(j).

As to whether the applicant has expressed support for a terrorist organisation,[66] I accept that in his Telegram conversations with the ‘sheikh’ in May this year, the applicant made statements that constituted expressions of support for IS. For example, the applicant said that he had ‘always dreamt of going to America under the guidance of Islamic State and committing jihad then Martyrdom’. Further, after saying that his movements had been restricted after he ‘was caught with 3 knifes’, the applicant asked, ‘Is there a way I can serve the Islamic State by online digital means?’. The following day, he said, ‘I will start searching for more brothers who want to support Khilafah and once I find them can I refer them to you?’. Further, a video found on the applicant’s phone depicts him swearing what is alleged to be an oath of allegiance to IS.
[66]Bail Act, s 3AAA(1)(m)(ii).

Based on all of these surrounding circumstances, I am satisfied that the risk that the applicant will endanger the safety and welfare of other persons, or commit a Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 offence, is an unacceptable risk. The applicant faces a strong prosecution case on serious charges. He has failed to comply with the conditions of previous grants of bail on numerous occasions. In the lead up to the alleged offending, the applicant made statements that expressed support for IS, a listed terrorist organisation that inspires, encourages, enables and directs attacks on civilians internationally. The applicant’s acquisition of multiple weapons in this period, which he also chose to carry in public, is a matter of considerable concern, as is the fact that the location of some of these weapons is unknown. The applicant’s interest in violent extremism persists and an increasing level of intent has been observed. His problematic behaviour in the custodial setting has escalated.

I accept that the applicant’s behaviours of concern, including the conduct giving rise to the alleged offending, are likely to be related to the effects of his complex diagnosed conditions, together with his lack of maturity. However, the applicant’s impulsivity, impressionability and lack of insight exacerbate the risk that he poses to members of the public, and to any Youth Justice workers involved in supporting him in the community. The risk posed by the applicant is reflected in the assessment of Youth Justice that he is unsuitable for the Youth Justice Bail Service, a matter that the Bail Act expressly empowers me to take into account.[67] To the extent that it is suggested by Mr Norton that the applicant is unlikely to carry through with any acts of violence, because his threats to do so are ‘fantasies’, I am not persuaded that this possibility sufficiently ameliorates the risk he poses. My assessment of whether the applicant poses an unacceptable risk is informed not just by the likelihood that the risk I have identified will become reality, but on the very grave consequences that would eventuate if it does.
[67]Bail Act, s 3B(2).

In reaching the conclusion that the risk posed by the applicant is an unacceptable risk, I have taken into account each of the issues relevant to a child applicant for bail that are enumerated in s 3B of the Bail Act, which I have previously identified.[68] These include the need to impose on the applicant the minimum intervention required in the circumstances.
[68]See [132] above.

I have also considered whether there are any conditions of bail that may be imposed to mitigate the risk posed by the applicant so that it is not an unacceptable risk.[69] The proposed conditions of bail are extensive. They include: a residential condition; a curfew condition; exclusion zones; a prohibition on possessing or attempting to buy weapons; prohibitions in relation to use of the internet without supervision; a requirement to comply with all directions of the Enhanced Bail Supervision and Support program; a requirement to wear an electronic monitoring device, through which compliance with the curfew condition and exclusion zone conditions can be monitored; and judicial monitoring. There is no doubt that these conditions are capable of mitigating the risk I have identified to some extent. However, I am not satisfied that they mitigate the risk to an acceptable level.
[69]Bail Act, s 4E(3)(b).

I accept the evidence of Commander Read that there are limitations to the extent to which an electronic monitoring device can mitigate the particular risks posed by the applicant. For example, the proposed electronic monitoring condition, together with the exclusion zone and curfew conditions that it is designed to enforce, is not capable of preventing the applicant from planning for, and engaging in, violent acts that take place during the day and in a location that is not captured by an exclusion zone.

In considering the mitigatory effect of the proposed bail conditions, I have given considerable weight to the applicant’s non-compliance with bail conditions on previous occasions. During a bail service assessment conducted prior to the June 2025 Report, the applicant expressed concern that the program to which he would be subject on bail would be as restrictive as his previous experience with Intensive Bail, which he described as ‘challenging’. In the June 2025 Report, Youth Justice described the applicant’s ability to understand the requirements of his bail conditions, and the additional controls that would be imposed as part of the Enhanced Bail Supervision and Support program and electronic monitoring, as something that would ‘require constant testing and reinforcement to ensure he is not overwhelmed or increasingly deflated, leading to feelings of frustration and disempowerment’.

I accept that the applicant’s parents are a positive protective factor in the applicant’s life, and that they are motivated to do what they can to ensure that the applicant complies with any conditions of bail. I do not regard their lack of engagement with the Countering Violent Extremism team as a matter that casts doubt on the genuineness of their motivations. Given the events that led to the permanent stay of the previous charges, their reluctance to deal with this team is understandable.

I accept the evidence of Youth Justice that the applicant’s parents have previously identified early signs of non-compliance with bail conditions and encouraged the applicant to adhere to bail compliance plans. I also accept the evidence of the applicant’s mother that she and her husband have identified additional measures that they are prepared to put in place in the home environment in an attempt to mitigate the particular risks that the applicant will continue to access the internet, and that he will obtain or use a weapon.

However, as Youth Justice identified in the June 2025 Report, the applicant’s parents are managing a range of significant responsibilities, including full time employment, the care of three other children, one of whom is disabled, and the ongoing demands of family life. The alleged offending occurred in circumstances where the applicant had, without their knowledge and against their wishes, acquired a mobile phone, as well as knives and machetes. Despite their best intentions, I have significant concerns about the ability of the applicant’s parents to provide the level of intensive supervision and monitoring that would be required to adequately mitigate the risk I have identified, even with the assistance of the Enhanced Bail Supervision and Support team. As the applicant’s mother said when acknowledging that she was unaware of the phone the applicant was using prior to being taken into custody, the applicant is now 18 years old, ‘not a three year old’. I am particularly concerned about the ability of the applicant’s parents to monitor the applicant’s use of technology and the internet, in circumstances where the applicant has recently used technology to acquire weapons, to post violent extremist material, to make threats to kill and to engage in online discussions about terrorist ideology. I am not satisfied that the plan to place the family’s devices in a safe overnight and to keep from him the codes that could be used to unlock those devices during the day, is sufficient. The evidence establishes that in response to previous bail conditions, the applicant was persistent and creative in his attempts to access devices and the internet, both inside and outside the family home. Youth Justice has acknowledged that it has limited means to monitor this aspect of the applicant’s activities.

In this regard, it is also relevant that the applicant has shown a willingness to disregard the wishes and instructions of others he appears to hold in high esteem. The Telegram conversations between the applicant and the person he described as ‘sheikh’ demonstrate that despite the ‘sheikh’s’ instruction not to threaten institutions with fake attacks to instil fear, the applicant proceeded to send the email that is the subject of charges 3 and 4 the following day.

Finally, I have had regard to the guiding principles set out in s 1B of the Bail Act, including the overarching importance of maximising, to the greatest extent possible, the safety of the community and persons affected by crime. As Incerti J recognised in Re SL, there are competing aspects of community safety where an applicant is a child, which have a short term and long term dimension.[70] Placing a child in custody protects community safety in the sense that it removes the child’s immediate opportunity to offend, but may have different implications for community safety in the longer term, given Parliament’s acknowledgement that incarceration poses criminogenic risks for children.[71] In the circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that community safety is maximised by refusing the application for bail.
[70][2025] VSC 571, [51].
[71]Re SL [2025] VSC 571, [50]–[51]; Bail Act, s 3B(1)(h).

Bail will be refused.

[2025] VSC 637

9 October 2025