Re Kozarov - [2025] VSC 439

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2022 0056

IN THE MATTER of an application pursuant to s 33 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997
and
IN THE MATTER of an application by ROGER KOZAROV

---

JUDGE:	Incerti J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 July 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 July 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Kozarov
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 439

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Crimes mental impairment – Application for revocation of non-custodial supervision order – Continuation of order not necessary to ensure safety of applicant or community – Application to non-custodial supervision order granted – Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act1997 (Vic).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr J Dalrymple	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Secretary to the Department of Health	Mr J Teng	Department of Health
For the Attorney-General for the State of Victoria	Ms G Suhren	Victorian Government Solicitor

HER HONOUR:

By notice dated 17 February 2025, Roger Kozarov (‘the applicant’) applies to revoke his non-custodial supervision order (‘NCSO’) pursuant to s 33 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (‘the Act’).

The application is not opposed by the Secretary to the Department of Health (‘the Secretary’) and the Attorney-General.

I heard the application on 16 July 2025 and made orders that the NCSO be revoked on 22 July 2025. These are my reasons.

Background

On 6 February 2015, Mr Kozarov killed his father in the context of paranoid and persecutory delusions arising from poorly-treated schizophrenia.

Following a hearing pursuant to s 21(4) of the Act in which a verdict of not guilty of murder by reason of mental impairment was entered, on 20 January 2016, Mr Kozarov was made subject to a custodial supervision order (‘CSO’) with a nominal term of 25 years.[1] In May 2024 I granted an application varying the CSO to the current NCSO.
[1]The nominal term commenced from the date of the index offence.

I refer to my written reasons in that application for a more fulsome history of the matter, including the personal and psychiatric history of the applicant.[2]
[2]In the matter of an application for a non-custodial supervision order by Roger Kozarov [2024] VSC 275.

Applicable law

Pursuant to s 33(1) of the Act, on an application for revocation of an NCSO, the Court must either confirm the order, vary its conditions, vary the order to a CSO, or revoke the order.

In exercising this discretion, the Court must have regard to the factors set out at s 40(1) of the Act, being:

(a) the nature of the person’s mental impairment or other condition or disability; and

(b) the relationship between the impairment, condition or disability and the offending conduct; and

(c) whether the person is, or would if released be, likely to endanger themselves, another person, or other people generally because of his or her mental…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Re Kozarov

Details

AGLC: Re Kozarov [2025] VSC 439
Case: [2025] VSC 439
Decision Date: 22 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Kozarov, filed an application under the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic) for the revocation of a non-custodial supervision order that had been imposed on him following a conviction for a serious criminal offence. The application was heard by the County Court of Victoria, which was required to determine whether the continuation of the non-custodial supervision order was necessary for the protection of the applicant or the community.

The central issue before the court was whether the non-custodial supervision order should be revoked. This required a consideration of the current risk posed by the applicant and whether the supervision order remained necessary to protect the safety of the applicant or the community. The court was required to weigh the seriousness of the offence, the risk of reoffending, and the applicant's current mental state against the benefits of the supervision order.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the applicant's mental impairment no longer posed a significant risk to the community, and the continuation of the non-custodial supervision order was no longer necessary for the protection of the applicant or the community. The court was satisfied that the applicant's mental health had improved, and he had complied with the conditions of the supervision order. The court noted that the applicant had shown a commitment to his rehabilitation and had not reoffended during the period of the supervision order. The court concluded that the supervision order had served its purpose and that it was appropriate to revoke the order.

The court revoked the non-custodial supervision order imposed on the applicant. The applicant was no longer subject to the conditions of the order, and the order was formally terminated.

Orders