Re Rodgers - [2025] VSC 248

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2025 0075

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

- and -

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by Leigh Rodgers

---

JUDGE:	Fox J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7 May 2025
DATE OF RULING:	8 May 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Rodgers
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 248

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Bail — Family violence offending — Use of a firearm — Exceptional circumstances — Significant and relevant prior convictions — Applicant relies on delay of two years; the availability of residential rehabilitation at ‘The Cottage’; and ‘triable issues’ — Respondent concedes that it is ‘open’ to the Court to find exceptional circumstances exist — Unacceptable risk alleged by respondent — Exceptional circumstances not established — Applicant an unacceptable risk in at least one of the ways alleged by the respondent — Bail refused — Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E; Rajic v The Queen [2016] VSC 27.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms L Dubroja	Adrian Paull Criminal Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr P Pathmaraj	Director of Public Prosecutions

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

Leigh Rodgers (‘applicant’) applies for bail on the following 14 charges:

(a) Reckless conduct endangering life (two charges);

(b) Reckless conduct endangering serious injury (three charges);

(c) Being a prohibited person use a firearm;

(d) Recklessly discharge a firearm at vehicle;

(e) Dangerous driving;

(f) Common assault;

(g) Contravene an interim family violence intervention order (‘interim FVIO’) (three charges);

(h) Persistent contravention of an interim FVIO; and

(i) Attempt to pervert the course of justice.

At the time of the alleged offending, the applicant was on bail for a Schedule 2 offence pursuant to the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) (‘Act’).[1] He is alleged to have committed indictable offences in the course of which the applicant, or any person involved in the commission of the offence, used or threatened to use a firearm.[2] It is common ground that the applicant must satisfy the Court that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail.
[1]Bail Act 1977 (Vic) s 4AA(2)(c)(i) (‘Bail Act’). The applicant was on bail for trafficking in a drug of dependence, which is a sch 2 offence.
[2]Ibid, sch 2 item 23.

Alleged offending
24 April 2024 incident

At the time of the alleged offending, the applicant and the complainant, KR, had been in a relationship for approximately six months.

In the early hours of the morning of 24 April 2024, the applicant and KR were at KR’s house in Cobden. The applicant was jealous of KR spending time with other people and a verbal argument ensued. KR left the premises; when she returned a short time later, the applicant was not there. At around 4:00am the applicant returned to the property with the co‑offender, Joshua Bond (‘Bond’). Bond parked his Ford Falcon sedan (‘Ford’) on the nature strip and…

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 Rodgers

Details

AGLC: Re Rodgers [2025] VSC 248
Case: [2025] VSC 248
Decision Date: 8 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re Rodgers, the applicant sought bail while facing criminal charges involving family violence and the use of a firearm. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria, presided over by Judge O’Bryan. The primary issue before the court was whether the applicant met the criteria for bail, specifically whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify granting bail despite the risk factors presented by the applicant's criminal history and the nature of the charges.

The court considered whether the applicant could demonstrate exceptional circumstances under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic). The applicant argued that the delay in the proceedings, the availability of a residential rehabilitation program at 'The Cottage', and the existence of triable issues could constitute exceptional circumstances. However, the court found that the delay in proceedings did not constitute exceptional circumstances, and the availability of the rehabilitation program did not mitigate the risk factors presented by the applicant's significant and relevant prior convictions. Additionally, the court determined that the triable issues did not establish exceptional circumstances.

After weighing the risk factors against the applicant's arguments, the court concluded that the applicant posed an unacceptable risk in at least one of the ways alleged by the respondent. Consequently, the court refused the applicant's application for bail. The court's reasoning was grounded in the statutory provisions of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) and the relevant case law, particularly Rajic v The Queen [2016] VSC 27. The final orders of the court were that the application for bail was refused.

Orders