Re Nikkelson (Bail Application) - [2025] VSC 392

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2025 0121

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977
and
IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by CONNOR NIKKELSON

---

JUDGE:	T Forrest JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 June 2025
DATE OF ORDERS:	20 June 2025
DATE OF REASONS:	2 July 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Nikkelson (Bail Application)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 392 (revised 4 July 2025)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail application – Charges of armed robbery, assault with weapon and possess controlled weapon without excuse – Applicant 18 years old – Aboriginal heritage – Significant traumatic childhood events – No prior convictions – Compelling reasons exists – Whether risk unacceptable – Unacceptable risk not established – Risk of committing an offence can be managed by conditions – Bail granted with conditions – Bail Act 1977 ss 3AAA, 3A, 4AA, s 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr J Patterson	Legal Aid
For the Respondent	Ms C Duckett	Ms J Curtain, Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The applicant for bail is an 18-year-old Aboriginal man of the Gunditjmara People. His Aboriginality comes through his maternal lineage. This is not mere historical background—it is directly relevant to this application through ss 3A and 3AAA of the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’).[1]
[1]Bail Act 1977 ss 3A, 3AAA.

The applicant has been charged with a series of offences arising from an incident on 14 June 2025 at a mini mart in Box Hill. Those offences are:

(a) armed robbery;[2]

(b) assault with weapon;[3] and

(c) possess controlled weapon without excuse (two charges).[4]

[2]Contrary to s 75A of the Crimes Act 1958.

[3]Contrary to s 24 of the Summary Offences Act 1966.

[4]Contrary to s 6 of the Control of Weapons Act 1990.

In very short compass, it is alleged that the applicant and a 19-year-old co-offender entered the store at about 10:35 pm. A younger co-accused stood watch outside. Both the applicant and the older co-offender were carrying knives (the applicant carrying a large wooden-handled knife). There were two mini mart employees present when the applicant and his co-accused produced their knives. The older co-accused demanded money and threatened the staff. The staff refused and one of them told the intruders to get out. The older co-accused replied, ‘Do you want to get stabbed? Give me cash. I’m not leaving until I get cash’.

I have viewed CCTV footage of the entire incident. Contrary to the police summary, the applicant does not try to stab the complainant at all, and for most of the minute or so that he is in the store, he is at the counter area, perhaps a meter from the victims of this offending. The victims were behind the counter near the till for most of this time. As far as I could see, the CCTV does not show the 19-year-old co-accused attempting to stab…

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 Nikkelson (Bail Application)

Details

AGLC: Re Nikkelson (Bail Application) [2025] VSC 392
Case: [2025] VSC 392
Decision Date: 20 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re Nikkelson, the applicant faced charges of armed robbery, assault with a weapon, and possession of a controlled weapon without a valid excuse. The case was heard in the relevant court where the applicant sought bail. The applicant, an 18-year-old with Aboriginal heritage, had no prior convictions but had experienced significant traumatic events in his childhood. The central legal issues before the court were whether the applicant posed an unacceptable risk to the community and if bail could be granted with conditions to manage that risk.

The court examined the circumstances of the alleged offences, the applicant's background, and the potential for the risk of reoffending to be mitigated by bail conditions. It was acknowledged that the applicant faced significant personal challenges, but the court had to determine if these circumstances were sufficient to establish an unacceptable risk. The court found that while the applicant's traumatic experiences were compelling, they did not necessarily equate to an unacceptable risk of reoffending. The court considered the seriousness of the charges and concluded that the risk of reoffending could be adequately managed through specific bail conditions. As a result, the court granted bail with conditions.

The final orders of the court included specific conditions aimed at ensuring the applicant's compliance with the bail terms and reducing the risk of reoffending. These conditions were designed to support the applicant while also protecting the community. The court's decision was grounded in the principles of the Bail Act 1977, particularly sections 3AAA, 3A, 4AA, and 4E, which guide the court in assessing the risk and determining appropriate bail conditions.

Orders