Application for bail by LU (Youth)
[2022] VSC 644
•14 October 2022
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Unrestricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2022 0265
| IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 | Crown |
| v | |
| IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by LU (Youth) | Accused |
---
JUDGE: | Jane Dixon J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 14 October 2022 |
DATE OF RULING: | 14 October 2022 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Application for bail by LU (Youth) |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VSC 644 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Applicant charged with family violence offences whilst already on bail for violence offence – Aboriginal applicant – 17 years old – Mental Health vulnerability – Strong family support and Youth Justice support plan – First time in custody – Compelling reason shown – Risk not unacceptable risk provided strict conditions in place – Bail granted – Bail Act 1977 ss 1B, 3A, 3AAA, 4AA(3), 4E(1), 5AAAA(1) – Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 ss 346(6) and 3B(1).
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Sergeant Peter L Murphy | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr Vincent Vuu | Lisa Wood Lawyers |
HER HONOUR:
Introduction
The applicant, LU, seeks bail having been refused bail on 6 October at Melbourne Children’s Court.
LU is 17 years old and was born on 24 October 2004. He is soon to turn 18.
He is currently facing two sets of charges relating to, firstly an incident outside a nightclub in late 2021, for which bail was granted, and more recently conduct relating to a former girlfriend culminating in charges laid by Informant Yates.
The Morris charges
LU was charged on 11 January 2022 by First Constable Morris with recklessly causing serious injury on 19 December 2021,[1] and the alternative charge of recklessly causing injury.
[1]Pursuant to s 19 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
It is alleged that LU, who was 17 at the time of the incident, assaulted Jake C, a man previously unknown to him, at 2.15am on 19 December 2021 outside a nightclub. Jake C had been asked to leave the venue because of annoying behaviour towards several women, including LU’s sister. It is alleged that while outside the nightclub, LU punched Jake C to the left side of the jaw, rendering him unconscious. Jake C fell backward and struck the back of his head on the footpath, causing a fractured skull. Jake C was then further assaulted by another offender. Jake C has suffered ongoing effects from the assault.
LU was arrested and granted bail that same day.
Informant Morris’s charges are next listed on 20 October 2022 at the Sunshine Children’s Court for Contest Mention. The other offender who assaulted Jake C after the alleged assault by LU has been dealt with in the Magistrates’ Court.[2]
[2]DG, man unknown to the accused, assaulted Jake C while he was on the ground and stole his mobile phone. On 4 October 2022 DG’s matter resolved and he plead guilty to intentionally causing injury and theft. He was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 1 year and 5 months imprisonment, with a 9 month non-parole period. DG was 21 at the time of his offending and had relevant criminal history.
The Yates charges
On 5 October 2022, LU was arrested, charged and remanded by Constable Yates for the following offences:
(a) Charge 1: Threat to inflict serious injury, pursuant to s 21 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) (‘Crimes Act’), between 1-31 August 2022;
(b) Charge 2: Stalking pursuant to s 21A(1) of the Crimes Act, between August and October 2022;
(c) Charge 3: Threat to kill pursuant to s 20 of the Crimes Act, on 2 October 2022;
(d) Charge 4: Threat to destroy property pursuant to s 198(a) of the Crimes Act on 2 October 2022;
(e) Charge 5: Possess ammunition without a permit, pursuant to s 124(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (Vic) on 6 October 2022; and
(f) Charge 6: Commit indictable offence while on bail, pursuant to s 30B of the Bail Act 1977.
The offences follow the breakup of an intimate relationship between LU and the complainant. The complainant, CS, is 25 years old. She has a 3 year old daughter from a previous relationship. CS and LU met in March 2022. The relationship lasted about 5 months. The pair split up in August 2022.
It is alleged that after the break up, LU did the following:
(a) Sometime in August 2022, after approaching CS at a restaurant and engaging in an argument with CS and a man named Peter, LU waited by CS’s car. When CS returned to her car, there was an argument between the parties. LU began to walk away, but then turned to CS, and said ‘I will fucking stab you’ and ran at CS. LU then hit CS’s car, but did not cause any damage.
(b) On 2 October 2022 LU texted CS stating ‘I will kill U watch’; ‘watch dog’; ‘just remember who’s gonna have notnit’; ‘Oi’; ‘Ur fucked’ ‘Ur full getting killed’; ‘Run dog’ and ‘I got a Tracker on ur car’. LU had, on other occasions, sent other threatening text messages. At around 9pm on the same day, LU drove past CS’s house while yelling ‘yeah come out and I’ll blow your fucking heads off cunts’. The person in the front passenger seat was thought to be holding something. CS believed this was a gun and called police. When CS called out and asked why LU had brought a gun to her house, LU stated ‘yeah fucken oath, who is going to stop me’. After attempting to call SU multiple times, LU called CS’s mother and stated ‘I will burn the house down with all use in it.’
(c) On Wednesday 5 October 2022 around 9.47pm LU called CS and stated ‘I am going to kill you and Harley and I am going to kill myself’ and that he was coming to CS’s house. At around 10.28pm on the same day, LU went to CS’s house, got out of the car he was in, picked up a rock and went to throw it at CS’s house, before being stopped and pulled back into the car by his friends. LU then got out again and kicked CS’s bins over before getting back into the car and driving off.
(d) Police subsequently searched LU’s home and found a bullet on his bedside table.
This matter is next listed in the Melbourne Children’s Court on 26 October 2022 for mention.
LU was refused bail in the Melbourne Children’s Court on 6 October 2022 by Magistrate Ehrlich on the basis that he was an unacceptable risk of committing an offence while on bail; endangering the safety or welfare of any person; and interfering with a witness or otherwise obstructing the course of justice.
In addition to the oral submissions at the hearing on 14 October 2022, I also received written submissions from both parties and affidavits both in support and in opposition to bail.[3]
[3]Affidavit in Support of an Application for Bail, dated 9 October 2022; Applicant Outline of Submissions dated 13 October 2022; Affidavit in Response to an Application for bail dated 12 October 2022.
Applicant’s personal circumstances
LU has no criminal history, and currently resides with his mother, father, older sister (21 years old) and brother (19 years old). LU has a close relationship with his mother, who works full time as a primary school teacher and is a strong support for him. He is also close with his father, who is a fork-lift driver with a company called [redacted], and with his older sister. LU’s older brother has high functioning autism. LU’s siblings both work at [redacted] with his father.
LU was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (‘ADHD’) around grade 3. While he started taking Ritalin around year 6, his mother says that he ‘settled’ as he got older, and ceased the medication around year 8.
LU stopped attending mainstream schooling in 2020, when he was in year 9 or 10. He then enrolled in alternative schooling at a flexible learning campus at a local secondary college.[4] After some initial engagement at the flexible learning centre by remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, he disengaged from school. He has had a number of short term jobs since 2020, including work in sandblasting and with [redacted] unpacking containers. LU’s father gave evidence that LU left his employment with [redacted] on good terms when he was offered other work.
[4]Details provided to the Court.
LU’s mother gave evidence that LU starting seeing CS in April 2022. She said that she did not approve of the relationship because of the age disparity, and that this caused some tension in the family home. She said that LU stopped working before commencing the relationship (though he engaged in some mowing work) and that he had largely stopped seeing his friends during that time.
Tragically, LU’s younger brother passed away suddenly in 2018 in accidental circumstances. This was a devastating event for LU and his family. LU’s mother said that following the death of his brother, LU ‘had been the strong one’, but that he started having difficulty coping in early 2022, after he stopped working. This intensified around July or August 2022, at which point LU’s mother took him to a GP to seek assistance for his mental health. LU’s GP prescribed Valium and referred him to a psychiatrist and to Headspace. LU saw psychiatrist Dr Soumitra Das in mid-September 2022 and was prescribed the anti-depressant escitalopram. While LU took the Valium, which was dispensed by his mother to him, he had not been taking escitalopram. LU started taking escitalopram when he was remanded in custody.
Following his arrest on 6 October 2022, LU was seen by a court psychologist Tim McPherson at the Melbourne Children’s Court, who provided an initial report on the same day. LU presented with injuries from ‘self-injurious punching’ that occurred before and after his arrest. LU self-reported ‘intense anxiety over the last several years characterised by hypervigilance towards the judgement of others, and intense fear that he would be assaulted in public spaces’. As a result, he often avoids leaving home. LU reported lowered mood, that became worse after the death of his brother in August 2018. He said he drinks alcohol, and had the night before his arrest, but he denied other substance use. Concerningly, LU reported attenuated psychotic symptoms (auditory and visual hallucinations) that were more regular during times of stress or low mood. Mr McPherson noted that LU appeared to be at high risk of deterioration in his mental state and the development of a primary psychotic illness, and would benefit from ongoing mental health monitoring and support. The Court was subsequently provided with a second report by Mr McPherson dated 13 October 2022. In writing his report, Mr McPherson reviewed the clinical notes of psychiatrist Dr Ponnaganti, who saw LU in custody on 7 October 2022. Dr Ponnaganti noted that LU appeared to suffer from significant anxiety and historical perceptual disturbances, consistent with what Mr McPherson had earlier noted. Dr Ponnaganti said that LU presented with ‘low mood and distressed that appeared reactive to his incarceration’.
Applicable law
The Court is required to have regard to the guiding principles as set out in s 1B(1) of the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’).[5] This includes, amongst other things, maximising the safety of the community and persons affected by crime to the greatest extent possible, whilst also taking into account the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty.[6]
[5]The Act, s 1B(2).
[6]The Act, ss 1B(1)(a) and 1B(1)(b).
Under s 346(6) of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (‘the CYF Act’), the Bail Act applies to the extent that it is not inconsistent with the CYF Act.
In making a determination under the Bail Act in relation to a child, in addition to any other matters required by the Bail Act (such as the requirements under s 3AAA), the Court must take into account the matters set out in s 3B(1):
(a) Consideration of all other options before remanding the child in custody;
(b) The need to strengthen and preserve the relationship between the child and the child’s family, guardian or carers;
(c) allowing the living arrangements of the child to continue without interruption or disturbance;
(d) allowing education, training or employment to continue without interruption or disturbance;
(e) minimising the stigma to the child resulting for being remanded in custody;
(f) the likely sentence, should the child be found guilty; and
(g) ensuring conditions of bail are no more onerous than are necessary and do not constitute unfair management of the child.
The Court must also take into account any recommendations or information contained in a report provided by the bail support service.[7]
[7]Section 3B(2) of the Bail Act.
Compelling reason
The applicant is required to show a compelling reason that justifies a grant of bail pursuant to s 4AA(3) of the Act, as he is charged with Schedule 2 offences.[8] Accordingly, bail must be refused unless the applicant satisfies the Court that a compelling reason exists that justifies the grant of bail.[9] In considering whether a compelling reason exists the Court must take into account all of the relevant surrounding circumstances including, but not limited to, those set out in s 3AAA of the Act,[10] as well as the matters set out under s 3B(1) of the CYF Act. Section 3A of the Act also requires the Court to take into account any issues that arise due to LU’s Aboriginality.
[8]Namely schedule 2, items 1(a), 7 and 30.
[9]Ibid ss 4AA(3), 4C(1A)-(2).
[10]Ibid s 4C(3).
Unacceptable risk
Even where the Court is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist, the Court must refuse bail if the respondent discharges the burden of establishing that if released on bail, the applicant poses an unacceptable risk of engaging in any or all of the conduct captured by s 4E(1) of the Act.
Under s 4E(3) of the Act the Court is again directed to take into account the ‘surrounding circumstances’ in determining whether there is any relevant risk and whether it is unacceptable, and is directed to consider whether there are any conditions of bail that could mitigate risk so that it is not an unacceptable risk. The Court must again give consideration to s 3A of the Act and 3B(1) of the CYF Act in weighing the risk and in considering whether any conditions of bail could mitigate risk so that it is not an unacceptable risk.
Section 3A was added to the Act in 2021, in response to recommendations from the Victorian Law Reform Commission (‘VLRC’). In the second reading speech for the amending act,[11] the responsible minister stated that ‘the VLRC noted that Aboriginal Australians are overrepresented on remand and face unique disadvantages in their contact with the criminal justice system…’.[12]
[11]The Bail Amendment Act.
[12]Victorian Law Reform Commission, Review of the Bail Act: Final Report (2007), cited by Bell J in Re SE.
Family violence consideration
Section 5AAAA(1) of the Act requires the Court to make inquiries of the respondent as to whether there is a Family Violence Intervention Order (’FVIO’), family violence safety notice or another recognised domestic violence order in force against the applicant. Further, because the applicant is charged with family violence offences, the Court must consider whether, if he were released on bail, there would be a risk that he would commit family violence, and if so, whether that risk could be mitigated by the imposition of a bail condition or the making of a FVIO.[13]
[13]Ibid s 5AAAA(2).
The respondent has informed the Court that there is an interim FVIO in place for the protection of CS and her 3 year old child. It was put in place at the time of his arrest on the Yates charges. It prohibits the applicant from;
(i) Committing family violence against CS or her child;
(ii) Intentionally damaging any property of CS or her child or threatening to do so;
(iii) Attempting to locate, follow or keep CS or her child under surveillance;
(iv) Publishing on the internet, or by email or other electronic communication any partial CS or her child by any means;
(v) Approaching or remaining within 5 metres of CS or her child;
(vi) Going to any place where CS or her child live, work or attends school/childcare;
(vii) Getting about other person to do any of the thing LU must not to under the order.
Applicant’s contentions in support of bail
The applicant relies on a combination of the below factors to establish a compelling reason justifying a grant of bail:
(a) Nature and seriousness of the alleged offending: the applicant concedes that the alleged offending is objectively serious.
(b) Strength of Prosecution case: The applicant submits that the charges depend largely on the evidence of CS.
(c) Bail compliance history: The applicant was on bail for the Morris charges at the time of the offending alleged by Yates. The applicant submits that he has not breached the conditions of the Morris bail (other than by the alleged further offending).
(d) Family support and stable accommodation: If bailed, LU can live with his mother, father and older sister and brother in their family home. LU’s mother is a strong support for him. The Youth Justice Report notes that her commitment to supporting LU is evident in her interactions with Youth Justice, her support to link LU to community mental health supports prior to his arrest and her willingness to participate in proposed family meetings and safety planning sessions with the Family Violence Practitioner. LU’s mother gave evidence that if granted bail, she would be willing to take leave from work, would set up a family roster to make sure there was always someone who is with LU and can take him to appointments. She expressed support for the proposed mental health supports, and was involved in their planning with Youth Justice. LU’s father is employed full time with [redacted], and could take leave to support LU, if needed. LU’s mother spoke with insight about family violence, and has had some direct conversations with LU since he was remanded and conveyed to him her strong opinion that such behaviour is unacceptable. She is aware of the conditions of the FVIO protecting CS and her child and is supportive of LU engaging with further education about domestic violence. LU’s mother testified that if the Court were to make a condition of bail that LU not contact SC and she saw that he was breaching this order, she would be willing to undertake to call police. LU’s mother was also supportive of the imposition of a condition that LU not consume any alcohol,[14] but expressed some hesitation about the imposition of a curfew. She said she would support such a condition if it included an exception that allowed him to leave the house with his immediate family members. LU’s mother also confirmed that the family do not have a gun in their home and that LU does not have access to guns.
[14]Mr Vuu made submissions against a condition that LU not consume alcohol, suggesting that there could be an exception that LU can drink alcohol when with his immediate family. Mr Vuu noted that LU will turn 18 shortly, and may wish to consume alcohol on his 18th birthday. This submission was ultimately not accepted.
(e) Education and employment: If granted bail, LU hopes to return to packing containers for [redacted], to work alongside his father, brother and sister. LU’s father gave evidence that there is casual work available to LU 3-5 days per week, and that he could travel to and from work with his father or his sister. LU would need to undertake an induction and medical check, which may take a week, before commencing work. [redacted] also conducts routine drug testing of its employees. LU has ambitions to work as a forklift driver in the future. This training could be undertaken with [redacted]. When speaking to Youth Justice, LU identified working as an important aspect of his bail plan and something that would bring him closer to his family.
(f) Special vulnerability: the applicant is particularly vulnerable, given his age, lack of criminal history, his mental health, and because this is his first experience on remand. The applicant also relies on the effect of COVID-19 precautions still in place at Parkville Youth Justice Centre. After being transported to Parkville Youth Justice Centre, the applicant spent 4 days in solitary confinement awaiting a negative PCR result. The Youth Justice report notes that LU’s mental health appears to have deteriorated since being remanded, citing the period of isolation as something LU found particularly difficult.
(g) Available Bail Supports/ treatment: The Youth Justice report states that LU ‘demonstrated a positive capacity to engage in interventions and risk mitigation strategies by his active participation in the assessment and interview process’ and that he has the strong support of his family. Youth Justice propose that LU:
(viii) at a minimum, attend weekly appointments with Youth Justice;
(ix)along with his parents, attend a safety planning meeting with Family Violence practitioner Justine Curatolo. Ms Curatolo can assist LU in understanding and complying with the Family Violence intervention Order; and
(x) return to employment at [redacted].
In his report dated 13 October 2022, Mr McPherson makes the following recommendations:
(i) LU continue to engage with Dr Das to rationalise medication and ‘monitor his ultra-high risk of developing a psychotic illness’;
(ii) Engage with Headspace psychotherapy to address the grief and loss arising from the death of his younger brother. He has an initial appointment on 3 November 2022; and
(iii) While it was not included as a recommendation in his report, in his oral evidence Mr McPherson confirmed that it was also his recommendation that LU be referred to tertiary mental health services.[15] In his oral evidence, Mr McPherson noted that both he and Dr Ponnaganti had significant concerns relating to LU’s risk factors for an emerging psychotic illness. LU meets the threshold for early intervention through tertiary mental health services, though it should be noted that LU does not at this point meet the criteria for compulsory treatment and as such, his engagement must be voluntary.[16] While LU initially did not consent to this referral, indicating it would be too onerous and impact on his plan to resume work,[17] after further discussions with Youth Justice, LU consented to such a referral being made.
(h) Delay: The applicant submits it is likely that LU will spend more time in custody on remand than any period of detention that may be imposed if he pleads or is found guilty of the Yates offences, given the fact that he is a child offender with no criminal history. It was submitted that the wide availability of non-custodial sentences under the Children Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic) is a ‘very significant matter’[18] weighing heavily in favour of a grant of bail.
[15]Mr McPherson explained during the bail applicant that a tertiary mental health service is a specialist mental health service that can provide assertive and intensive multi-disciplinary mental health treatment for members in the community, and can also provide compulsory treatment.
[16]It was noted during the bail application that handover from the treating team in custody to the tertiary mental health support would occur quickly.
[17]During his evidence Mr McPherson said that tertiary mental health services can be quite flexible and should not be an obstacle to LU engaging with work.
[18]Citing HA [2021] VA 64 [61].
The applicant submits this assessment must also be made in light of s 3B(1) of the Bail Act, in particular the requirement under s 3B(1)(a) that the decision-maker consider all other options before remanding a child in custody. The applicant submits that when assessing risk, the Court should take into account LU’s conduct since the alleged offending, including that he voluntarily attended the Police Station on 5 October 2022 to be interviewed in relation to the allegations, and that since his arrest, he has had significant time to reflect on his conduct. The applicant submits that any risk can be ameliorated by:
(a) The Interim FVIO;
(b) Engagement with the Youth Justice Bail support Program;
(c) The support offered by his family and the opportunity for work; and
(d) Engagement with mental health services.
The applicant proposes the following conditions:
(a) That the applicant reside at his family home;
(b) That the applicant engage with Youth Justice and follow their lawful directions;
(c) That the applicant engage in mental health assessment and treatment; and
(d) Any further conditions the Court considers appropriate.
Respondent’s contentions in opposition to bail
The respondent initially opposed bail on the basis that the applicant has not established compelling reasons justifying a grant of bail. However, referring to the written submissions of the applicant, in oral submissions the respondent conceded that compelling reasons were made out, noting the strength of the support provided by LU’s family and accepting that non-custodial disposition may be within range if LU was found guilty of the offences charged.
The respondent’s written submissions identified that LU is an unacceptable risk of:
(a) endangering the safety or welfare of any person, based on the nature of the allegations against LU, the concerns relating to his mental health and his unpredictable behaviour. It was alleged that while under arrest and pending interview, LU initially stated he would not comply with the FVIO, though it should be noted that during his police interview, and through his lawyer, LU has indicated a willingness to comply with the Order;
(b) committing further family violence against CS for the reasons outlined at (a);
(c) committing an offence while on bail; and
(d) interfering with a witness or otherwise obstructing the course of justice.
In oral submissions, the respondent focused on (a)-(c). Senior Constable Shaun O’Donoghue gave evidence that the complainant was strongly opposed to bail, and had said she was fearful of what might happen if LU was released on bail.
The respondent drew attention to the serious nature of the charges against LU, and submitted he has shown a previous ability to act with serious violence. The respondent raised concerns about possible access to a weapon, as well as a concern about the proximity of LU’s grandmother’s house to CS.
It was proposed by the Court that a bail condition could prevent LU from being within 100 metres of CS’s home, which would have the effect of preventing LU from attending his grandmother’s house. Mr Vuu noted that while LU had indicated frustration at such a condition when it was proposed by police,[19] since speaking with his family and discussing alternative ways to maintain a relationship with his grandmother he is now willing to comply with such a condition.
[19]Police had on 6 October 2022 told LU that this would be a condition of the FVIO, though it appear that no such condition was ever imposed.
In written submissions, the respondent also relied on further contextual matters, including that CS said that her family had security cameras installed at her house because of fear of LU and that she fears repercussions from LU or his friends because she made a statement to police.
The respondent further relied on the assertion by police that on 5 October 2022, when CS was driving to the police station she received a call from LU. She told LU that she was going to the police station, to which he replied ‘I will come down’. Shortly after CS arrived at the police station, LU attended. Police allege that LU was behaving erratically and was looking to see where CS was.
Consideration
Has the applicant established that a compelling reason exist justifying a grant of bail?
Ultimately, for the reasons set out in paragraph 4 of the written submission of Mr Vuu, the respondent did not dispute that the compelling reasons test could be met in this case. I agree with those submissions especially in light of LU’s age, this being his first time in custody, and the consideration under s 3B(1) of the CYF Act and s 3A of the Bail Act.
Has the respondent satisfied the Court that LU poses an unacceptable risk of engaging in any of the conduct set out under s 4E(1)(a) of the Act?
I am satisfied that the risks posed by granting bail to LU can be adequately addressed by stringent conditions of bail.
The Youth Justice Support Plan is very comprehensive and offers significant reassurance about LU’s current attitudes and willingness to cooperate with Youth Justice, his family and health professionals. The Youth Justice Report notes that LU was ‘very forthcoming … about his mental health, family, grief and loss, his vocational plans, recreational interests, and his personal relationships’ and that in his conversations with them, he said that he had developed understanding of the seriousness of his circumstances and the Family Violence Intervention order that was made. LU also spoke about his relationship his mother, whom he identified as a significant support for him. He also reflected on how difficult it has been for her to see him in custody.
It is very clear that LU’s experience of being remanded in custody has been very sobering for him and has provided a significant wake-up call regarding his previous behaviour. I acknowledge that CS does not wish for LU to be bailed and is afraid of him, but there is now a FVIO in place and conditions of bail can provide an additional layer of protection.
I also acknowledge the respondent’s concern that LU was already on bail for a serious matter when the alleged offences charged by Informant Yates took place. I have weighed this concerning aspect in considering the risks posed by LU. It was obviously a matter that must have influenced the Children’s Court Magistrate to refuse bail at first instance regarding the new charges. However, since his remand in custody, LU has expressed he has no desire or intent to contact CS again.
LU’s entire family have taken the trouble to attend court with him today and have demonstrated their strong willingness to offer ongoing supervision and support should he be granted bail. Mr McPherson during his evidence noted that this is not always the case for young people involved with Youth Justice.
LU’s family are willing to have a roster in the early phases of bail to supervise LU. His mother has said she will take time off work to support him, if needed. LU’s mother shares a close relationship with LU (as does his father) and has promised to notify the authorities if LU breaches bail. LU’s mother appears well-informed about support systems that can be accessed for LU in the community. It is also worth noting that at time of the incident which led to LU’s arrest on 6 October, LU’s mother and sister had both attended the location where he was to check on him. This shows the high level of support and care he had from his family. It also seems that the family eschews possession of dangerous weapons and would not tolerate LU having them. His mother is also aware of which of his friends might be a poor influence due to excessive drinking or similar behaviour.
It is to the family’s credit that before LU was charged with the new offences, his mother had already arranged a GP appointment for him due to LU’s acute emotional distress. LU had attended the GP and followed through on the GP’s referrals obtaining an appointment with Headspace and having an initial consultation with psychiatrist, Dr Das.
LU is now in a position to get the mental health support he needs to deal with the significant personal issues he has been facing, including ongoing grief since the accidental death of his younger brother, and the ending of his first significant intimate relationship.
LU is now taking the medication prescribed by Dr Das without any adverse effects, though it may take some time for the medication to take full effect. He had previously been reluctant to start that medication although he had been willingly taking the Valium that had been prescribed by his GP to deal with anxiety.
LU has future appointments with Headspace and with Dr Das. When he is next seen by Dr Das, his prescriptions can be reviewed based on how he responds to the new medication that has now been commenced. LU has now expressed willingness to consult with a tertiary mental health provider for further assessment of possible psychotic symptoms, as recommended by the psychiatrist who assessed LU during his time on remand.
Towards the end of his police interview for the offences of stalking and related charges concerning CS, LU indicated a willingness to comply with the conditions of the FVIO that was to be put in place, saying he no longer wanted anything to do with her. In contrast to the position previously there is now a FVIO in place and it seems that LU is now well aware that he cannot be in contact with CS. This will be further emphasised in a planned appointment with a specialist family violence counsellor. It is reassuring that the authors of the Youth Justice report consider that LU is now more aware of the importance of avoiding the kinds of behaviours reported by CS in the future.
Other protective factors include the offer of employment at the same workplace as other family members, which will ensure LU is occupied and supervised, in contrast to the period when he was in a relationship with the complainant, CS.
LU has worked with the proposed employer in the past and his father gave evidence that LU was well-liked and left of his own accord to pursue other work. Helpfully, LU’s family members will be able to transport LU to and from the proposed workplace. LU has firm intentions to become qualified to operate a forklift at the proposed workplace, showing that he is making sensible plans for the future.
It is apparent to the Court that LU’s siblings are very concerned for his welfare and can provide additional sources of information to his parents and health professional about how LU is faring day-to-day and about his daily activities. This is very helpful.
I will put Judicial Monitoring in place as a condition of bail to ensure LU is keeping with his conditions of bail.
Accordingly, bail is granted with the proposed conditions circulated to the parties, which have been put in place to ensure that the risks posed by bailing LU are not unacceptable.
---
0
0
0