Re Okuman (Bail Application)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2025 0158

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

-and-

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by MEHMET ALI OKUMAN

BETWEEN:

MEHMET ALI OKUMAN	Applicant
v
VICTORIA POLICE	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Gorton J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 September 2025
DATE OF RULING:	2 September 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Okuman (Bail Application)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 541

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Where applicant alleged to have murdered son with schizoaffective disorder and threatened family members – Whether exceptional circumstances test satisfied – Where applicant has no criminal history or past failure to comply with bail conditions – Where alleged offending occurred in unusual circumstances and unlikely to be repeated – Where surety is offered – Where there are triable issues – Where period likely spent on remand substantial but not uncommon – Where applicant has accommodation available – Whether unacceptable risk the applicant would interfere with a witness or obstruct cause of justice – Where primary witnesses’ concerns of interference lack substantive detail – Where imposition of bail conditions will mitigate risk – Bail granted - Re CT [2018] VSC 559 – Re Politis [2019] VSC 780 – Re Pham [2024] VSC 143 – R v Cox [2003] VSC 245 – Re Foxwell [2013] VSC 716 – Bail Act 1977 (Vic), ss 4A(1A), 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr Sam Tovey	Milides Lawyers
For the Respondent	Ms Jelena Malobabic	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

A Background

The applicant, Mr Mehmet Ali Okuman, is a 53 year old man who migrated to Australia from Turkey when he was an infant. He is alleged to have committed a series of offences on 25 January 2025 including the murder by stabbing of his 33-year old son, Gokhan Okuman, the deceased, and to have assaulted and threatened his wife Songul Akbulut (from whom he was amicably separated but to whom he remains married) and his daughter Sinem Okuman. Mr Okuman has applied for bail.
Murder is a Schedule 1 offence,[1] so I am required to refuse bail unless the applicant can persuade me that ‘exceptional circumstances exist 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 accused would be sentenced to a term of imprisonment and, if so, whether the time the accused would spend remanded in custody if bail is refused would exceed that 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 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]That is, an offence specified in Schedule 1 of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).
[2]Ibid, s 4A(1A).
[3]Ibid s 4A(3).
[4]Ibid ss 3AAA, 4A, 4E.
If I am satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail, I must then grant bail unless I’m satisfied that there is 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 take into account, again, the surrounding circumstances and whether there are any conditions of bail that may be imposed to mitigate the risk so that it is not an unacceptable risk.[6]
[5]Ibid s 4E(1).
[6]Ibid s 4E(3).

B The surrounding circumstances

The circumstances of this alleged offending are unusual. The applicant does not have a criminal record and at the time of the alleged offences was, according to his employer of six years, a ‘dedicated and conscientious’ team leader who was ‘well liked by his peers and management alike’ and an ‘affable and happy individual’. He has a mortgage, and although repayments have been temporarily deferred for a period of three months while he is in custody, he currently owes thousands of dollars in arrears.
I should add that in 2003, a family violence intervention order was granted against the applicant, with the ‘affected family member’ alleging that the applicant had assaulted them on many occasions and had threatened to kill them. The circumstances in which it was obtained are unclear, as the order before me states that it is a final order, yet also states that the applicant was not served with a copy of the application and was not at court, which would ordinarily suggest that it was obtained ex parte. Be that as it may, it expired in February 2010, and there is no suggestion that the applicant did not comply with the terms of that order or was ever charged with any offences of the type referred to within it.
The deceased, the applicant’s son, had been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder and manic depression. He was living in Craigieburn with his mother and sister who were his primary carers. He could be aggressive and violent including towards his family members and had been the subject of nine reported incidents of family violence between 2015 and 2023, in eight of which his mother and sister were listed as the affected family members and in the other of which the applicant was listed as the affected family member. I will only set out the details of the incident involving the applicant and the most recent incident, which was in June 2023. The incident involving the applicant took place on 1 May 2021. According to the summary of facts prepared by the Informant in the current charges, the deceased started punching and kicking his sister following a dispute involving a mobile phone. The applicant attempted to stop the deceased, and the deceased then punched the applicant in the face. A witness heard the deceased shout to the applicant several times that he was going to kill him. Ultimately, ‘multiple witnesses’ intervened to separate them both. On 13 June 2023, the deceased became annoyed with his mother and sister for organising cleaners to come to the house and, again according to the summary of facts prepared by the Informant here, the deceased placed both his hands around his mother’s neck and pushed her up against a wall and began to choke her. The police were called and they observed ‘multiple holes in the corridor walls’ caused by the deceased.
It seems clear that on 25 January 2025 the deceased was in a bad way. He had not taken his medication on the prior evening. That afternoon, Ms Akbulut and Ms Okuman left the home to pick up the applicant to take him to a mechanic to collect his vehicle. Ms Akbulut and Ms Okuman returned to the house at around 5:15pm. While Ms Akbulut, Ms Okuman and the applicant were out, the deceased sent a series of text messages to his sister. I will not reproduce the entirety of the messages here, but they included the following texts:
(a)‘You don’t answer my messages You die dog’;
(b)‘STAY THE FUCK AWAY FROM ME TODAY’;
(c)‘DO NOT COME NEAR ME TODAY’; and
(d)‘LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE’.
Presumably to avoid contact with the deceased, who was inside the house, on their return his mother and sister went and sat in the garage, which had been converted into a living area. The kitchen knives were kept out of sight and in the garage area because, according to the Informant, who presumably heard this from Ms Akbulut and Ms Okuman, the deceased’s psychiatrist had recommended that that be done.
The applicant arrived at around 5:30pm with some firewood that he carried to the rear of the house. He waved at the deceased through the window of the loungeroom as he passed by. An Uber driver arrived at the house to deliver food to the deceased, and the applicant spoke to the driver, asking them to leave the food at the front door of the residence. Around this time, the deceased sent another series of messages to his sister, including:
(a)‘WHAT IS THAT SON OF A BITCH CALLED MEHMET DOING INSIDE’;
(b)‘WHY DID HE SPEAK TO THE UBER DRIVER’;
(c)‘I WILL KILL YOU DOG’;
(d)‘GIVE HIM A HEADS UP’;
(e)YOU WILL TELL EVERYONE ABOUT EVERY SHIT;
(f)OTHERWISE I WILL CUT YOU ALL ONE BY ONE; and
(g)‘THINK AHEAD PLAN AHEAD PIG’.
Ms Okuman sent a series of text messages in response explaining that she had not had an opportunity to tell the applicant that the deceased wished to be left alone and that she had now done so.
The deceased then went into the garage where Ms Okuman and Ms Akbulut were drinking coffee. The deceased yelled at Ms Okuman as she had not told the applicant not to speak to the deceased. A fight thereafter broke out between the applicant and the deceased that involved ‘kicking, punching and strangling’ and that left the applicant with numerous broken ribs on both sides of his body and a lacerated hand, his wife with bruising and a stab wound in her left thigh, Ms Okuman with bruising and lacerations to her hand, and the deceased with five stab wounds one of which resulted in his death. The accounts of how this all came to be have varied and the issues at any trial will likely include whether the prosecution can prove murderous intent and disprove that the applicant acted in self-defence. Without intending to be exhaustive, I refer to the following pieces of evidence that may be called:
(a)When Ms Okuman called triple zero, she stated that her brother had an anger outburst and that the applicant ‘lost control’ and ‘took a knife from the cupboard’ and tried to stab her brother. In another call to triple zero, she said, among other things that her brother ‘got aggressive’ and ‘tried to attack’ her and her mother and ‘my dad went in between and he’s trying to bash him’. She repeated that her father ‘took a knife from the cupboard’ and said that ‘he tried to stab all of us’;
(b)Bodyworn camera footage from the police records the applicant saying, among other things: ‘Kill this cunt, then he’s gonna fucking stop’, and ‘I stabbed him, the fucking idiot. That’s what happened, he was not stopping’;
(c)In the ambulance on the way to the hospital, the applicant told a paramedic that he heard screaming from his wife, son and daughter when he was delivering firewood and when he went into the house he found his son with a large knife and his wife with a stab wound to her leg and his son attacking his daughter – that is, that the deceased had obtained and was using the knife first, not him, and had inflicted the stab wound on Ms Akbulut;
(d)At the hospital, Ms Okuman told the police that her brother had not taken his medication for two days and was being ‘aggressive’, both men were attacking each other with their fists, her brother was punching and kicking but that her father ‘got a knife’ from somewhere and starting stabbing her brother, that she did not see her brother with a knife and did not initially see her father with the knife but thought he was ‘just punching’, and that her father is ‘usually very calm but he lost control’ and ‘both of them went crazy’;
(e)At the hospital, Ms Akbulut told the police that the deceased came into the garage and tried to hit her daughter and when she intervened he tried to hit her instead, that he did not then have a weapon, her son and the applicant then started fighting and choking each other, there was then a temporary separation before the deceased returned with the applicant’s wallet and threw it on the ground, after which the applicant started hitting him again. She said she didn’t initially see the knife, but then noticed it in the applicant’s hand;
(f)When interviewed by police, the applicant said, among other things, that the deceased was ‘attacking us like we’re his enemies’ and that the deceased ‘doesn’t care if he’s gonna kill you or smash you in the eye or do whatever’. He otherwise said that he ‘didn’t do nothing’ and ‘didn’t stab anybody’. He later told the police that that deceased ‘attacked us’ and repeated that he didn’t stab the deceased. He also said that he was ‘trying to save’ Ms Akbulut and his daughter and that the deceased was trying to kill them;
(g)Ms Akbulut and Ms Okuman have since signed statements in which they say that the deceased had calmed down before the applicant attacked him with a knife and, in the course of the fight, the applicant also assaulted and threatened them.
The applicant has been in custody since 25 January 2025 and interim family violence intervention orders have since been made against him. He is charged with:
(a)Murdering the deceased;
(b)Recklessly causing injury to Ms Akbulut;
(c)Making a threat to kill Ms Akbulut intending or being reckless that she would fear that the threat would be carried out;
(d)Assaulting Ms Akbulut;
(e)Recklessly causing injury to Ms Okuman;
(f)Making a threat to kill Ms Okuman intending or being reckless that she would fear that the threat would be carried out; and
(g)Assaulting Ms Okuman.
Ms Gulayse Okuman-Topbas, the applicant’s sister, has offered to be a bail guarantor and has offered a surety of $50,000 secured by a property. She gave evidence and was an impressive witness. She swore and undertook that she would notify the Informant if the applicant had or appeared likely to breach a bail condition, and that she understood that the surety could be forfeited if the applicant were to breach a bail condition.
The applicant’s mother has recently had a hip operation and is prepared to have the applicant live with her at an address in Roxburgh Park. The applicant has not been to Turkey in the last 30 years and has significant community ties, including a mother and siblings and a property in Melbourne.
The committal is set down for later this year. It was common ground that any trial would probably take place either late 2026 or in early 2027, with the result that, if bail is not granted, the applicant will have spent approximately two years on remand prior to trial.
Ms Akbulut and Ms Okuman both say that they are afraid of the applicant and oppose the grant of bail and it was suggested that they had, at least for a time, relocated to Turkey out of fear of the applicant and would do so again if bail were granted.

C Are there exceptional circumstances that justify the grant of bail?

In my view, and notwithstanding the seriousness of the alleged offending, there are exceptional circumstances associated with this case that take this case ‘out of the normal’[7] and that justify the grant of bail. I place particular emphasis on the facts that:
(a)The applicant, who is now in his fifties, has no criminal record and an excellent work record,[8] and this alleged crime occurred in unusual circumstances unlikely to be repeated where, on any view, the applicant found himself in a violent confrontation with a seriously-unwell family member. I place little weight on the 2003 family violence intervention order because of the matters referred to in para 5 above and because it is now more than 20 years ago;
(b)There are triable issues arising out of the facts that the deceased was acting aggressively that day and was willingly engaging in a violent altercation with the applicant, presumably as a result of his then-unmedicated mental illness. Further, and although Ms Akbulut and Ms Okuman will give evidence which if accepted could well result in a finding of guilt, Ms Akbulut said while at hospital that the deceased had struck her and had tried to strike her daughter (which details are not included in her formal statement), neither of them in fact saw the applicant collect the knife from the drawer, and the applicant told the ambulance officers shortly after the event that it was the deceased who had initially had the knife;
(c)If bail is not granted, the applicant will have been on remand for approximately two years prior to trial, which although not uncommon and not longer than the likely duration of any sentence to be imposed if he is found guilty, is nonetheless a lengthy period of time to spend on remand;[9]
(d)The applicant’s sister, whose reliability was not challenged, has offered to be a guarantor and to put up $50,000 as a surety;
(e)The applicant has a mortgaged property that he might lose if he is unable to work; and
(f)The applicant has a place to live, and would, by living there, be looking after his mother.
[7]Re CT [2018] VSC 559, [64] citing with approval Re Sam [2017] VSC 91 [22].
[8]In Re Politis [2019] VSC 780, Zammit J found that an applicant’s lack of criminal history was persuasive in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist that justify a grant of bail, when considered in combination with other factors including, in that matter, the ‘availability of family support… in monitoring [the applicant’s] compliance with any conditions of bail’. More recently, in Re Pham [2024] VSC 143 Croucher J considered that an applicant’s lack of prior convictions and that it was ‘the first time [the applicant] has ever been in custody’, in combination with the other considerations, amounted to exceptional circumstances that justified the granting of bail: see [18], [20]-[21].
[9]Delay is a relevant factor, even if it does not exceed the duration of a likely sentence: see eg R v Cox [2003] VSC 245 and Re Foxwell [2013] VSC 716.
I have borne in mind the concerns that Ms Akbulut and Ms Okuman expressed about the applicant’s being granted bail. But there was nothing put before me that gave real substance to those complaints. It seems that, while they may have gone to Turkey out of fear of the applicant, the trip to Turkey shortly after the deceased’s death was also so that they could bury him there and they returned to Australia a few months ago. Although they expressed concerns to the Informant that they had received threats from the community that they attributed to the applicant or his family if they did not change their statements, that people had attended their property to intimidate them, and that the applicant had previously threatened them, these assertions were not able to be substantiated by the provision of detail. It seems, for example, that although some neighbours told them while they were overseas that there was something amiss about the house, when the police attended there was nothing to be noted and there is no record of any break ins. Further, while they said that they had received some pressure or intimidation from members of the community, when asked for details by the Informant they were unable (or perhaps unwilling) to provide any information about any occasions on which they were approached, or who approached them, or what was said. Finally, when asked why they would go back to Turkey if the applicant were granted bail, they said that they did not want to ‘bump into him’, rather than that they were afraid that he would harm them.

D Is there an unacceptable risk?

The prosecution did not press its submission that there was an unacceptable risk that the applicant if released on bail would fail to surrender into custody in accordance with the conditions of bail. This was because it emerged in the hearing of the application that the applicant had not been to Turkey for 30 years and, although he may have had a Turkish passport, it had probably expired long ago. Further, he has his family here in Australia. The prosecution did submit, however, that there was an unacceptable risk that the applicant if released on bail would interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice. The prosecution did not submit that there was a risk that the applicant would otherwise endanger the safety or welfare of members of the community.

Notwithstanding the charges that the applicant that day threatened and assaulted Ms Akbulut or Ms Okuman, I do not accept that there is an unacceptable risk that the applicant if released on bail would interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice that may not be ameliorated by the imposition of conditions of bail. As the above analysis makes clear, the events of 25 January 2025 arose in unusual circumstances that are unlikely to be repeated, the applicant has no criminal record, and the evidence that the applicant was putting pressure on or threatening Ms Akbulut or Ms Okuman was too vague and imprecise to discharge the onus on the prosecution to establish an unacceptable risk. Further, conditions can and will be imposed that should prevent the applicant from coming into contact with Ms Akbulut or Ms Okuman. In this respect, I note that the applicant has proposed bail conditions including that he live with his mother, not attend the mosque in Broadmeadows that Ms Akbulut and Ms Okuman attend, and not travel into Craigieburn where they live and shop.

E Disposition

I will grant bail on the bail guarantee offered by Ms Gulayse Okuman-Topbas and will record in ‘other matters’ of my order that she has undertaken to contact the police if she becomes aware of or suspects that the applicant has breached or is going to breach any condition of his bail. I will impose the usual conditions that the applicant not contact any witnesses for the prosecution save for the Informant, not attend any points of international departure, not leave Victoria, surrender any passport to the Informant and not apply for any further passport. I will also impose conditions that he reside at his mother’s address in Roxburgh Park and not travel into or through Craigieburn, and that he comply with the terms of the interim Family Violence Intervention Orders in proceedings numbered R10573149 and R10573295.

[2025] VSC 541

2 September 2025