Re Clark (Bail Application)
[2025] VSC 601
•19 September 2025
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2025 0212
IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977
-and-
IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by JACK CLARK
BETWEEN:
| JACK CLARK | Applicant |
| and | |
| VICTORIA POLICE | Respondent |
---
JUDGE: | Gorton J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 19 September 2025 |
DATE OF RULING: | 19 September 2025 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Re Clark (Bail Application) |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VSC 601 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Applicant charged with firearm offences and contravention of family violence intervention order whilst on bail – Where applicant has history of firearm offences – Where applicant was twice subject to community correction orders – Where persons affected by family violence are supportive of bail application – Where availability of accommodation with family friend and ex-policeman – Where Court Integrated Services Program recommends the applicant for case management – Where firearms are two air rifles and a homemade PVC fruit gun – Where no suggestion that firearms ever used in a threatening manner – Where exceptional circumstances exist to justify grant of bail – Where the risk is acceptable with imposition of bail conditions – Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 4AA, 4A.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant | Ms Amy Peek-Lasry | Victoria Legal Aid |
| For the Respondent | Ms Jessica McCartney | Victoria Police |
HIS HONOUR:
A Background
On Friday 19 September 2025, I granted bail to Mr Jack Clark, the applicant, gave some oral reasons, and said I would publish some more detailed reasons in due course. These are those reasons.
The applicant is a 27 year-old male who before his arrest resided with his parents in Waranga Shores in Victoria’s Campaspe Region. On 17 and 19 January 2025, the police searched those premises and found some firearms and ammunition that it is alleged belong to the applicant. The applicant was not present and was not arrested at that time.
On 25 March 2025, a final order was made under the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 that the applicant not contact or go within 200 metres of his three children and their mother. It was also ordered that any firearms authority held by the applicant be cancelled and that he immediately hand any firearms in his possession to the police. Also on 25 March 2025, an interim order was made under the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 that the applicant not commit family violence against his mother or be at his parents’ house without their permission and must leave immediately if requested to do so.
The following day, on 26 March 2025, the applicant was arrested and charged with six firearm offences (‘the 26 March 2025 charges’). He was released on bail. It was a condition of his bail that he not possess any firearms or firearm related items.
Some ten weeks later, on 5 June 2025, the applicant’s parents called the police, after leaving their house, and said that the applicant had threatened to hit his mother with a hammer and to kill her. The police attended and searched the premises and, it is alleged, located further firearms and ammunition and other items. The applicant was arrested and charged with 14 offences including contraventions of a family violence intervention order and further firearm offences (‘the 5 June 2025 charges’). Bail was refused for these charges and the earlier bail was revoked. The applicant has been in custody since that time.
The applicant applied to this Court for bail on conditions including that he reside not with his parents but with a Mr John Kean, a family friend, that he respect a curfew, and that he engage with and follow the directions of the Court Integrated Services Program.
B The legal principles
Because the applicant was on bail for a Schedule 2 offence at the time of the 5 June charges, one of which is a Schedule 2 offence,[1] the applicant must be denied bail unless he satisfies me that there exist ‘exceptional circumstances’ that justify the grant of bail.[2] In considering whether exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail, I must take into account the ‘surrounding circumstances’.[3] The surrounding circumstances are ‘all the circumstances that are relevant to the matter’ and include: whether the applicant would be sentenced to a term of imprisonment; the nature and seriousness of the alleged offending; the strength of the prosecution case; the applicant’s criminal history; the extent to which the applicant has complied with the conditions of any earlier grant of bail; whether, at the time of the alleged offending, the applicant was on bail for another offence; whether there is in force a family violence intervention order against the applicant; the availability of treatment or bail support; the view of the alleged victims; and the applicant’s ‘personal circumstances, associations, home environment and background’.[4]
[1]Bail Act 1977 (Vic) sch 2 item 18(a).
[2]Ibid ss 4AA(c)(i), 4A(1).
[3]Ibid s 4A(3).
[4]Ibid s 3AAA.
If I am satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail, I must then grant bail unless I am satisfied there exists an ‘unacceptable risk’ that the applicant would, if released on bail, commit a Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 offence, endanger the safety or welfare of any other person, interfere with a witness or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, or fail to surrender into custody in accordance with the conditions of bail.[5] When considering whether a risk of that type is an ‘unacceptable risk’, I must again take into account the ‘surrounding circumstances’ and consider whether the imposition of any bail conditions could mitigate the risk to one that is not an unacceptable risk.[6]
[5]Ibid s 4E(1).
[6]Ibid s 4E(3).
In considering both whether exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail and whether there is an unacceptable risk of the kind referred to above, regard must be had to the overarching importance of maximising the safety of the community and persons affected by crime, and also to the presumption of innocence and right to liberty of persons who have not been, and may never be, found guilty of the charges alleged against them.[7]
C The allegations in more detail
[7]Ibid s 1B.
C.1 The 26 March 2025 charges
It is alleged that during the January 2025 searches, the police found two air rifles, one unregistered and the other appearing not to have a serial number, a box of shotgun primers (being a component of a shotgun cartridge), one round of .45 calibre cartridge ammunition, ammunition for air rifles, two rounds of .22 calibre cartridge ammunition, ten rounds of .303 calibre cartridge ammunition, three rounds of shotgun ammunition and 40 9mm casings (‘spent’ ammunition). The police also found a ‘fruit gun’ made of PVC piping.
The applicant provided a ‘no comment’ police interview. Because less than five years beforehand he had been subject to a final personal safety intervention order, the applicant was a ‘prohibited person’ for the purposes of the Firearms Act 1996 even though that intervention order had expired in April 2024.[8] He was charged by First Constable Crowther-Wilkinson with:
(a)Three counts of being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm;
(b)One count of possessing a traffickable quantity of firearms, being two or more firearms;
(c)One count of possessing cartridge ammunition without license or permit; and
(d)One count of unlicensed person storing firearm/ammunition in an insecure manner.
[8]Firearms Act 1966 (Vic) s 3 (definition of ‘prohibited person’ para (c)(ib)).
In the words of the submissions filed by the applicant in this application for bail, the applicant ‘has not confirmed whether he will contest’ these charges. Although there are no doubt some triable issues, it cannot be said that the Crown case is weak.
C.2 The 5 June 2025 charges
It is alleged that early on the morning of 5 June 2025, the applicant walked into his mother’s bedroom and asked for water, to which she replied that only tap water was available. The applicant became aggressive and an argument ensued, during which the applicant blamed his mother for not being able to see his child, abused her, and said: ‘I should hit you over the head with a hammer’. During the argument, the applicant headbutted a plaster wall, leaving a hole. Ms Clark was frightened and left the premises and spoke by telephone to the applicant’s father, Mr Clark. Mr Clark called the applicant. His parents then called the police, who went to the premises and arrested the applicant. The police searched the premises and found 12-gauge shotgun ammunition and casings, rifle ammunition, an imitation handgun, knuckle dusters and multiple identification and bank cards belonging to a person with whom the applicant has no association.
Constable Lucas charged the applicant, and on 17 September 2025, after negotiations between the parties that resulted in some charges being withdrawn, he pleaded guilty to:
(a)One count of contravention of a family violence intervention order by causing fear;
(b)One count of possessing ammunition for firearms not authorised to possess;
(c)One count of possessing an imitation firearm;
(d)One count of handling or receiving or retention of stolen goods;
(e)One count of possessing a prohibited weapon without exemption or approval, namely knuckledusters;
(f)One count of criminal damage; and
(g)One count of committing a Schedule 2 offence whilst on bail.
The applicant has not yet been sentenced for these offences, but I am told by his counsel that he is next before the Magistrates’ Court on 20 October 2025 and that he may well be sentenced on that day.
D Are there exceptional circumstances that justify the grant of bail?
The applicant has a significant criminal history. I will put to one side his history from when he was a child. In September 2017, the applicant was convicted of stealing a motor vehicle and a series of traffic offences and, more significantly, possessing an imitation firearm. He was sentenced to a 12 month community correction order. In February 2019, the applicant was convicted of contravening that community correction order, driving whilst disqualified, theft, recklessly causing injury, theft of a motor vehicle, reckless conduct endangering life, cultivating cannabis, possession of cannabis, dealing with the suspected proceeds of a crime and, again significantly, possessing an imitation firearm without an exemption or approval. He was sentenced to 80 days imprisonment (reckoned as time already served) and a 12 month community correction order. Then, in May 2023, he was convicted of drug possession and, again significantly, carrying a controlled weapon without excuse. He received a fine.
This history reveals that the applicant has been prepared to breach court orders and to continue to possess weapons despite having been convicted and punished for doing so. In this respect, it is also significant that on the allegations, and it is also accepted by the pleas of guilty entered, the applicant continued to possess weapons and different ammunition despite:
(a)Being ordered on 25 March 2025 by the Magistrates’ Court in the family violence proceedings to hand in any firearms he had to the police; and
(b)It being a condition of his bail granted on 26 March 2025 that he not possess any firearms or firearm related items.
Also, in April 2022, a Personal Safety Intervention Order was made against the applicant. The relationship between the applicant and the ‘protected person’ is not clear. This order was in force until April 2024. No details of the events that lay behind the making of this Order were put before me. Then:
(a)On 25 March 2025, a Family Violence Final Intervention Order was made with the applicant’s three children and their mother named as the affected family members. The applicant was ordered, among other things, not to contact or communicate with the affected family members or to go within 200 metres of where they live or work or attend school. Again, no details of the events that lay behind the making of this Order were put before me, save that I was told, and it was not contested and so I accept, that it did not involve any physical violence; and
(b)Also on 25 March 2025, a Family Violence Interim Intervention Order was made with the applicant’s mother named as the affected family member. The applicant was ordered not to go to or remain at his parent’s house other than with their written permission and to leave immediately if requested to do so. I note, for completeness, that on 6 June 2025 this order was varied (on an interim basis) so that the applicant was also precluded from contacting or approaching within 10 metres of his mother. Again, I was told, and I accept, that this did not involve the applicant being physically violent.
On 16 September 2025, the applicant was assessed for his suitability for a Court Integrated Services Program (‘CISP’), the outcome of which was a recommendation for case management. During that assessment, the applicant said that he had been using ‘ice’ (methamphetamine) daily since he was 23 years old and cannabis since he was 12 years old. He said he had been diagnosed with depression and ADHD and ‘maybe Bi-Polar’ but would not say when or by whom he was so diagnosed. The report stated that an appointment had been made for the applicant to see his general practitioner on 23 September 2025 to obtain a mental health plan.
The applicant called evidence from Mr Kean and he was an impressive witness. He is a retired policeman and lives across the road from the local police station. He has known the applicant, or more particularly his parents, for many years. He has offered to have the applicant stay with him. He said, and I accept, that there are no firearms on his property. He was aware, in a general sense, that the applicant had taken drugs, and said that he would not tolerate any drugs or drug use on his property. He said, on his oath, that if the applicant breached his curfew or brought or used drugs on his premises he would report that to the police and I accept that evidence. Mr Kean has a car and would make himself available to drive the applicant to or from appointments if need be.
The applicant’s father also gave oral evidence and also was an impressive witness. He confirmed that none of the family violence allegations made against his son involved physical violence, and that both he and his wife were supportive of the applicant being granted bail on condition that he reside with Mr Kean (who he described as an ideal person for the applicant to live with). When asked why the applicant might now be more ready to engage in treatment directed at his drug use, he said that he and his wife have now told the applicant, for the first time, that if he does not get off drugs then he will be no longer able to live with them – that they have told him that they will ‘give up’ on him.
Ms Dannae McPherson from CISP also gave oral evidence. She confirmed that if the applicant were granted bail she would be his case manager, and that she would meet with him at 2pm this Tuesday 23 September 2025. There are places available in the Shepparton Men’s Behavioural Change program, and the applicant would likely be assessed for suitability for that program in about two weeks. She referred to other programs to which she might refer the applicant. She also confirmed that if it were a condition of his bail that the applicant attend case management with CISP and follow its directions, she would inform the police if the applicant were to miss an appointment.
The existence of exceptional circumstances that justify the grant of bail may be established by a combination of circumstances not one of which, taken by itself, would be sufficient.[9] In the circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances that justify the grant of bail. In addition to the matters referred to above, I note that:
(a)Although the unlawful possession of firearms is always a serious charge, I consider the applicant’s alleged conduct (for the purpose of this bail application only and without intending to limit in any way the approach any sentencing Court might take) in this respect to be at the lesser end of seriousness. The firearms the applicant has, on the allegations, unlawfully possessed are not sawn-off shotguns or usable handguns or high powered rifles or firearms of that type. They are two air rifles and a PVC ‘fruit gun’;
(b)There is no suggestion that the applicant has ever used the firearms in a threatening manner;
(c)Associated with this, there is a risk that the applicant might end up spending more time on remand than the time ordered in any sentence. The applicant has been on remand now for some 106 days. If the 26 March 2025 charges go to trial, it is likely that the trial will be heard in the first half of 2026 by which time the applicant will have spent approximately 10 months in custody. The respondent referred me to two cases involving firearm offences for consideration. In DPP v Symons,[10] the offender was sentenced to imprisonment of one year for possession of a traffickable quantity of firearms. But that case involved the possession of a loaded sawn-off bolt action rifle and a revolver and numerous batons and knives. In DPP v Vipond,[11] where the accused was sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment in relation to firearm offences. But, again, that case involved the possession of a sawn-off shotgun, a bolt action rifle, and a dismantled pump action rifle. Those types of guns are notoriously associated with violent criminal behaviour in a way air rifles and PVC fruit guns are not;
(d)There is no suggestion that the applicant has breached the family violence intervention order that operates in respect of his ex-partner and children;
(e)The affected person in the family violence intervention order that the applicant has breached, his mother, is supportive of the applicant being granted bail on the proposed conditions. Although it is well-known that in situations of family violence victims might agree to perpetrators being put in situations where they can continue their violent behaviour, this does not seem to me to be one of those circumstances. Rather, as explained by the applicant’s father, the applicant’s parents see this opportunity as a final opportunity for the applicant to get his life in order, so to speak;
(f)The applicant’s father has offered to have the applicant work with him in his excavation and landscaping business;
(g)The applicant will have an appropriate place to live other than with his parents with a responsible ex-policeman; and
(h)If bail is granted, CISP will put together a program of supervision and treatment for the applicant. In this respect, I note that it was a condition of the community correction orders made on 28 February 2019 and on 8 September 2017 that the applicant be supervised by the Secretary and that he undergo treatment and rehabilitation (including testing) for drug abuse or dependency as directed, as well as other programs. Although the applicant seems not to have taken advantage of these opportunities, there is no material before me that explains what was in fact offered or arranged or why programs were not pursued. Also, I consider there is a difference where there is a program the compliance with which is a condition of bail. Further, I was impressed with the applicant’s father’s evidence that this time was or could be different because of the change in attitude that was now being taken by him and his wife.
[9]See, eg, Re Logan [2019] VSC 134, [13] (Elliott J).
[10][2022] VCC 1471.
[11][2025] VCC 81.
I have not overlooked the applicant’s criminal history or that the ammunition allegedly found in his possession is ammunition for use in firearms other than those found in his possession and this raises the possibility that he has, or has had access also to other guns. But, as noted, there is no suggestion that the applicant has even improperly or aggressively used firearms and it may also be, as the applicant seems to suggest, that he just collected bits and pieces of ammunition and other items that he came across.
E Is there an unacceptable risk?
I am, for many of the same reasons, also satisfied that if the applicant is bailed to 20 October 2025 and suitable conditions are imposed, then the risk that the applicant will commit a Schedule 2 offence, endanger the safety and welfare of any persons, interfere with a witness or perpetrate family violence is an acceptable risk. In this respect, I place particular weight (noting some repetition) on the facts that the applicant has not been found with firearms on his person and that they have always been at his parents’ premises (where he was then living), that there is no allegation that he has breached the Family Violence Final Intervention Order in favour of his ex-partner and children, and that the prospects of his threatening his mother is reduced if he is not living at her house. Also, the charge in respect of which she is the primary witness has been resolved by a plea of guilty.
The applicant is before the Shepparton Magistrates’ Court on 20 October 2025, at which time he may be sentenced for the offences to which he has pleaded guilty. In those circumstances, the risk is ameliorated to a level that makes it acceptable if, in addition to what might be considered the usual conditions of a grant of bail, there are conditions of a grant of bail to that date that the applicant:
(a)Reside with Mr Kean and respect a curfew of between 10pm and 5am and produce himself at the front door of those premises during those hours if a member of the police requests that he do so;
(b)Attend all scheduled meetings with and follow all lawful directions of CISP officers and engage with any treatment and support plan arranged by them;
(c)Report to the Shepparton police station each Monday, Wednesday and Friday; and
(d)Comply with the Family Violence Interim Intervention Order made in proceeding R10195404.
There may also be an opportunity, if further bail is sought, for the applicant’s progress to be evaluated by the Magistrates’ Court on that day.
In reaching these conclusion, I have not overlooked the fact that, on the facts and allegations, the applicant has demonstrated a preparedness in the past to ignore court orders and to possess weapons that he is not allowed to possess, and to engage in threatening behaviour. Those are matters that create the relevant risk. But, on balance, I nonetheless consider the risk to be an acceptable one in all the circumstances.
F Disposition
The applicant was admitted to bail on the conditions described.
0
3
0