KBN v The State of Western Australia
[2021] WASC 310
•8 SEPTEMBER 2021
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL
CITATION: KBN -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2021] WASC 310
CORAM: FIANNACA J
HEARD: 6 SEPTEMBER 2021
DELIVERED : 6 SEPTEMBER 2021
PUBLISHED : 8 SEPTEMBER 2021
FILE NO/S: MBA 59 of 2021
BETWEEN: KBN
Applicant
AND
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Respondent
Catchwords:
Bail application – Bail granted – Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Bail Act 1982 (WA)
Result:
Bail granted
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| Applicant | : | S N Oliver |
| Respondent | : | K Robinson |
Solicitors:
| Applicant | : | Aboriginal Legal Service |
| Respondent | : | Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) |
Cases referred to in decision:
Milenkovski v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 99; (2011) 42 WAR 99
YSN v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 155
FIANNACA J:
(These reasons were given extemporaneously and have been edited from the transcript.)
The application and its history
This is an application for bail in respect of three charges that are pending against the applicant in the Magistrates Court. The applicant is charged with three counts of indecently dealing with a child under the age of 13 years, contrary to s 320(4) of the Criminal Code.
The child, who was eight years old, was a niece of the applicant's de facto wife, and was staying with her cousins overnight at the home of the applicant and his wife. The applicant is alleged to have fondled the child's chest and her pubic area, under her clothing, at around 11.00 pm on 6 August 2021 and at midnight, while his wife was asleep. The child disclosed the alleged incidents the following morning.
The applicant was arrested on 20 August 2021. He appeared in the South Hedland Magistrates Court on 21 August 2021 and applied for bail. He was represented by counsel. The police prosecutor said that the prosecution did not oppose bail but would ask for protective bail conditions. The learned magistrate immediately indicated, without having heard from the applicant's counsel, that he was 'not immediately of the view that bail [was] a good idea'.[1] He agreed to hear the alleged facts. Unfortunately, the prosecutor erroneously stated that the alleged offending involved three children under eight years of age. In fact, as I have indicated, the applicant is charged with three offences against the same child. However, it is not clear whether that had any bearing on the magistrate's approach, as he had already indicated a preliminary view that bail was not a good idea, and he stopped the prosecutor mid‑sentence as he was describing the first alleged act of indecency, telling the prosecutor he did not need to hear it. In any event, his Honour refused bail, stating that the matter was too serious and that he was not going to release the applicant back into a 'tight‑knit community'.[2] The applicant's lawyer was not given the opportunity to make any submissions in support of bail. In those circumstances, she enquired whether it was possible to 'preserve [the applicant's] ability to apply for bail,'[3] which could have been achieved by the magistrate noting that bail had not been considered, but his Honour declined the invitation.
[1] Exhibit 4 [2].
[2] Exhibit 4 [3].
[3] Exhibit 4 [3].
The applicant is next to appear in the Magistrates Court for a hearing on 26 October 2021. He does not have any other outstanding charges.
The application before this Court was filed on 24 August 2021. It is brought under s 14(2) of the Bail Act 1982 (WA) (the Act) and invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under s 14(1), by which the court may exercise afresh the jurisdiction to grant bail conferred on the magistrate by s 13 and sch 1 pt A of the Act. It is not an appeal from the magistrate's decision refusing bail.
The evidence in this hearing
The application is supported by two affidavits sworn by the applicant's lawyer, dated 24 August 2021[4] and 25 August 2021[5] respectively. The affidavits set out some matters concerning the applicant's personal circumstances. The affidavit dated 24 August 2021 attaches the applicant's criminal record.
[4] Exhibit 1.
[5] Exhibit 2.
The respondent is represented by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia. Bail was initially opposed on the basis that the accommodation proposed for the respondent, for the purposes of a residential condition, was not suitable. By an affidavit affirmed by the respondent's counsel,[6] information was put before the court raising concerns about that proposed accommodation, including the fact that there were children residing in the area and the place was also visited by members of the public, including children. The police had expressed concerns that, assuming a bail condition was included that the applicant was not to have unsupervised contact with children, his compliance with the condition could not be adequately monitored because of the distance between the location and the nearest police station. It is not necessary to refer to the other reasons why the accommodation was not considered suitable, because a different address is now proposed.
[6] Exhibit 6.
At the hearing of this application, the respondent did not oppose bail, provided that the proposed residence is found to be suitable.
I have also received into evidence the prosecution notices[7] and the statement of material facts[8] in respect of the alleged offences. I have also received two emails containing photographs of the new proposed residence which were forwarded to counsel for the respondent by the investigating officer.[9]
[7] Exhibit 3.
[8] Exhibit 5.
[9] Exhibit 7A, 7B.
I am satisfied that a grant of bail is appropriate, for the following reasons.
Legislative provisions and legal principles
Section 13(1) of the Act provides that the jurisdiction conferred by that section must be exercised subject to and in accordance with pt III of the Act and the further provisions in pts B, C and D of sch 1.
The principles relevant to the exercise of that jurisdiction are well known and are set out in Milenkovski v The State of Western Australia[10] and YSN v The State of Western Australia.[11] It is sufficient to note the following key points.
[10] Milenkovski v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 99; (2011) 42 WAR 99 (Milenkovski) [39].
[11] YSN v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 155 (YSN).
The grant or refusal of bail is at the discretion of the court, which is required to have regard to the questions in (a) ‑ (g) of cl 1 of pt C of sch 1 and any other questions which the court considers relevant. Apart from in certain specified circumstances that are not relevant to this application, there is no express statutory presumption for or against bail.[12] However, ordinarily, because of the structure of the statutory provisions, bail will be granted unless the court is satisfied that the accused should be kept in custody after considering those questions, having regard to the matters in cl 3 of pt C.[13]
[12] Milenkovski [39] (McLure P, Pullin JA & Hall J agreeing).
[13] Milenkovski [41].
The questions in cl 1(a) that may be relevant for the purposes of this application are whether the accused may fail to appear in court as required by his bail undertaking, whether he may commit an offence if not kept in custody, whether he may endanger the safety or welfare of any person, and whether he may interfere with witnesses. If there is a real risk of one or all of those things occurring, I must consider, under cl 1(e), whether there are conditions that could reasonably be imposed which would 'sufficiently remove the possibility' of the accused doing those things; in other words, whether the risk would be sufficiently reduced by such conditions.
In answering those questions, the matters I must take into account under cl 3 include:
(a)the nature and seriousness of the offence or offences and the probable method of dealing with the applicant if he is convicted;
(b)the applicant's personal circumstances, including his character and antecedents, which include any previous convictions;
(c)the history of any prior grants of bail to the applicant; and
(d)the strength of the evidence against him.
If I am satisfied there is a real risk of the matters set out in cl 1(a) occurring if the applicant is not kept in custody, I must assess the nature and extent of the risk to the integrity of the criminal justice process and community safety; and I must consider whether the nature and extent of that risk provides a proper ground for refusing to grant bail, having regard to reasonable conditions that could be imposed. In making that assessment and deciding whether there is a proper ground for refusing bail, I must have regard to the fact that the accused is presumed to be innocent of the offences with which he is charged, and the risk of injustice if ultimately he were to be acquitted after being held in custody for a lengthy period.
The question is whether there are conditions that can be imposed, reasonably, such that the remaining risk no longer constitutes a proper ground for refusing bail.
Given the emphasis placed by the learned magistrate in this case on the seriousness of the offending, it is appropriate to note that cl 1(g) of sch 1 pt C provides that a further question the court must consider is 'whether the alleged circumstances of the offence or offences amount to wrongdoing of such a serious nature as to make a grant of bail inappropriate'. It is evident from the wording of cl 1(g) that it is concerned with 'seriousness' of a kind that would make a grant of bail inappropriate, notwithstanding that the court might conclude that the risks referred to in cl 1(a) could be sufficiently reduced by the imposition of conditions in accordance with cl 1(e). As I noted earlier, the seriousness of the offence is a factor to be considered under cl 3 in assessing the risks referred to in cl 1(a). However, when considered under cl 3, the seriousness of the offence is not, per se, a basis for refusing bail. Rather, it informs whether there are reasons for refusing bail because the applicant may do one or more of the things referred to in cl 1(a). On the other hand, cl 1(g) is concerned with seriousness of such an order as to make a grant of bail inappropriate per se. It is self‑evidently concerned with seriousness of a high order, which is to be identified in the circumstances of the wrongdoing. In my opinion, if bail is to be refused on the basis of cl 1(g), the seriousness of the wrongdoing must be such that, notwithstanding that any risk identified in cl 1(a) could be reduced by the imposition of conditions, no residual risk would be regarded as acceptable, having regard to the principles outlined in YSN.
The proceedings in the Magistrates Court
Although this is not an appeal from the magistrate's decision, in my view it is appropriate to comment on the approach taken by the magistrate.
Although I have already summarised what took place before the magistrate in [3] above, the transcript of the magistrate's determination is brief and bears reproducing to provide the full context. The prosecutor had described the facts of the first alleged offence up to the point at which the applicant is alleged to have indecently dealt with the victim. The following then took place:[14]
[PROSECUTOR]: The accused placed his hand under the victim's T‑shirt and fondled - - -
HIS HONOUR: That's all right. I don't – that's all right. I don't need to hear it. I'm not going to give him bail.
[PROSECUTOR]: All right. Thank you, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: So, remanded in custody to 31 August on the basis that this is too serious. Releasing someone back into the community – a tight‑knit community is not something I'm going to do.
[DEFENCE COUNSEL]: Your Honour, in those circumstances we haven't really formally advanced the application for bail today. Is it possible to preserve his ability to apply for bail?
HIS HONOUR: No. I've thought about it. Bail's refused.
[14] Exhibit 4 [3].
With respect, it is not satisfactory that the applicant was not given the opportunity to put his case for bail, prior to bail being refused. Such a denial of the opportunity to be heard is inconsistent with the requirement for procedural fairness that underpins our system of justice. It has been noted in the past that the busy nature of the summary jurisdiction will not always allow for detailed reasons to be given for decisions made by magistrates. There is no evidence about the nature of the list within which the applicant's matter came to be considered, but even assuming that it was a busy list, that circumstance does not relieve the court of the obligation to act in accordance with procedural fairness. If the magistrate was not able to hear submissions because of time constraints, he should have acceded to the request by the applicant's counsel to proceed without considering bail, to preserve the applicant's right to apply for bail at a later hearing without having to demonstrate a change in circumstances.[15]
[15] See s 7D of the Act.
The magistrate's peremptory approach was apt to give the appearance of prejudgement and a failure to consider all relevant mandatory questions in accordance with the requirements of the Act. His Honour's remarks indicate that the only matters he took into account were his view about the seriousness of the alleged offending and the fact that he would be releasing the applicant into a 'tight‑knit community'.
To the extent that his Honour's comments suggest that the alleged circumstances of the offences amount to wrongdoing of such a serious nature as to make a grant of bail inappropriate (per cl 1(g) of sch 1 pt C), such a conclusion is untenable, in my opinion. In the first place, his Honour had not heard all the circumstances, or indeed any of them, in terms of the alleged indecent acts, stopping the prosecutor before he had completed describing the first alleged act of indecency. Secondly, the seriousness of offending with which cl 1(g) is concerned, which would justify a refusal of bail without more, is of a relatively exceptional kind. All sexual offending against children is serious. However, bail is routinely granted with protective conditions to persons who are charged with offences of the kind with which the applicant is charged. Every case must depend on its own circumstances, having regard to all relevant factors, but it is not readily apparent why the circumstances of this case would be considered to amount to wrongdoing of such seriousness as to make a grant of bail inappropriate, when compared to other similar cases.
As for releasing the applicant into a 'tight‑knit community', if the magistrate's concern was in respect of the potential for further offending or for interfering with witnesses, his Honour gave no consideration to what conditions might be imposed that would sufficiently reduce the risk. It may be that his Honour had some previously acquired knowledge about the relevant community, which informed his reticence to release the applicant back into that community. However, the applicant was entitled to know about any such factor to which the magistrate was having regard and to be heard about it, in particular in relation to any conditions that might be imposed and the availability of alternative accommodation in another location.
It would be hoped that the peremptory approach taken by the learned magistrate on this occasion would be avoided in future.
Consideration of relevant factors
I turn then to consider the factors in cl 3 that affect the assessment of the risks in cl 1(a) and whether conditions can be imposed in accordance with cl 1(e) to sufficiently reduce those risks.
Nature and seriousness of the offences and probable disposition
The circumstances of the alleged offences are set out in the statements of material facts.[16] They may be summarised as follows.
[16] Exhibit 5.
During the evening of 6 August 2021, the victim and other similar aged girls (her cousins), including the applicant's 8‑year‑old daughter, were at the applicant's home in a regional town in the north of the State, where he was living with his de facto partner, Ms B. During the day the girls had attended a fair in the town.
Sometime after 11.00 pm, the girls were in the lounge room, chatting and watching movies. Ms B had gone to bed. The applicant, who had been outside, drinking alcohol and smoking cannabis, entered the lounge room and sat with the victim and the other children, telling them he would keep them company. He then placed his hand under the victim's t‑shirt and fondled her chest. That is the first alleged offence.
The victim and the other children then left the lounge room and went into the main bedroom, where they went to sleep on the base of Ms B's bed. Ms B was asleep.
Around midnight, the victim and one of the other girls were awoken by the applicant entering the bedroom. The applicant lay on the edge of the bed and again placed his hand under the victim's t‑shirt and fondled her chest. That is the second alleged offence. He then placed his hand down the front of the victim's pants and fondled her pubic region. That is the third alleged offence.
The victim kicked the other girl who was awake, in an attempt to wake others in the bed. Having observed the applicant's actions, the other girl yelled out to her aunty, Ms B, to wake her up. The applicant quickly moved into his bed and pretended to be asleep, by snoring.
The victim disclosed the offending the next morning, on 7 August 2021, after she was found crying outside.
As I noted earlier, the applicant was arrested on 20 August 2021. He participated in an interview with police, during which he said he had consumed an excessive amount of alcohol and cannabis and could not recall his actions.
The applicant conceded in these proceedings that the offences are serious, and, if he is convicted, the likely disposition is an immediate term of imprisonment.
Strength of the evidence against the applicant
The applicant has indicated that he intends to plead not guilty to the charges.
It is not possible to assess the strength of the prosecution case on the materials available in these proceedings. Obviously, the case against the applicant will depend on the evidence of the alleged victim, an 8‑year‑old girl, and, in relation to the second and/or third alleged offence, perhaps on the evidence of the alleged victim's cousin, who is said to have been awake and saw what was occurring. The other relevant evidence, potentially supportive of the alleged victim's credibility, is the fact that she was in a distressed condition the following morning, and disclosed the offending at that time, relatively close to the time of the alleged offending. If both girls were to give evidence in accordance with the statement of material facts, it certainly could not be said that the case against the applicant is weak. It is noteworthy that, according to the statement of material facts, the applicant did not positively deny the offending, but said he could not remember what happened because of his state of intoxication.
In my opinion, this is not a case in which the strength of the prosecution evidence affects the question of whether the accused would appear in accordance with a bail undertaking. It has not been submitted that there is a realistic risk that he will fail to appear. However, on the available information, there is a basis to be concerned that the applicant poses a risk of committing a sexual offence against a prepubescent female child if he is not kept in custody.
Applicant's character and antecedents
The applicant's antecedents are set out in his counsel's affidavits.[17]
[17] Exhibits 1, 2.
The applicant is 44 years old.
As I mentioned earlier, he is in a de facto relationship with Ms B. He has four children with Ms B, the 8‑year‑old daughter and three adult sons.
Prior to his arrest, the applicant was caring for Ms B, who had a stroke around Christmas 2020. She still has ongoing mobility issues. The applicant also cared for one of his adult sons, who has mental health issues. I have been informed by the applicant's counsel that his absence from the family environment has not compromised the well‑being of either Ms B or the son.
Just prior to his arrest, the applicant moved to a rural station to live with his step‑parents. He was directed to do so by the Department of Communities, which had concerns about the welfare of the applicant's young daughter in light of the allegations the subject of the present charges. That direction prohibited the applicant from having contact with his daughter and from entering the townsite where the offending is alleged to have occurred.
The applicant has a criminal history, although none of his previous offences are of a sexual nature. Apart from driving offences, his criminal history is predominantly for offences of violence against his partner. His previous offending includes common assault in circumstances of aggravation in 2018, unlawful assault causing bodily harm in 2016, common assault in 2005 and possession of drug paraphernalia in or on which there was a prohibited drug or plant in 2018.
I note that the history of driving offences appears to be related to alcohol use, in that there are convictions for driving while under the influence of alcohol. It is apparent, overall, that alcohol and illicit drug consumption is an issue for the applicant.
Other matters
The applicant has previously breached court orders and the conditions of a bail undertaking.
On 7 March 2018, he was dealt with in the Magistrates Court for breaching a family violence restraining order (FVRO) and breaching an intensive supervision order (ISO). He breached the FVRO on 26 February 2018. He was fined $400 for that offence. He breached the ISO on 6 January 2018. The Magistrates Court ordered that the ISO continue, and no penalty was imposed for that breach.
The date of the breach of the conditions of bail is not specified in the record. He was dealt with for that offence in the Magistrates Court on 2 March 2005. He was placed on a community‑based order for 10 months with 65 hours of community work. Counsel for the applicant, having obtained instructions from him in relation to that particular breach, informed me that it involved the breach of a protective bail condition that had been imposed in respect of an offence of violence against his partner. That assault had occurred in the context of the applicant being intoxicated with alcohol. The applicant has said that the breach of the protective bail condition occurred when he and his partner resumed seeing each other and, as I understood, cohabiting on a consensual basis. While it may be that the applicant's partner agreed to see or cohabit with him, his conduct, nevertheless, was a serious breach of a condition which was intended to protect his partner.
The breach is a relevant consideration, given that what has been submitted on the applicant's behalf in this case is that protective bail conditions will sufficiently reduce the risk that the applicant would commit a further offence, or come into contact with the complainant or the other child witness.
The risks under cl 1(a) – conclusions
I am not persuaded there is a real risk that the applicant will fail to appear in court. He does not have a history of failing to appear in answer to his bail, and there is nothing in the materials before me to suggest he would not appear in relation to the three charges he now faces. The breach of bail conditions in 2005 does raise a concern in respect of his ability to comply with conditions, in particular a protective bail condition, but it did not involve failing to answer his bail. The respondent has not submitted that there is a real risk of such a failure in this case.
I am satisfied, however, that there is a real risk the applicant would commit an offence of the kind with which he is charged, if he is not kept in custody. Such an offence would necessarily involve endangering the safety or welfare of a child, so that risk also exists. In coming to those conclusions, I have had regard to the allegations and to the strength of the evidence, to which I referred earlier.
There is nothing in the materials before me to suggest that the applicant would interfere with the witnesses in this case. In any event, the protective bail conditions that would necessarily be imposed if bail is granted would address any such concern.
The question is whether there are conditions that can be imposed that will sufficiently reduce the risks I have identified, so that it would no longer be appropriate to keep the applicant in custody pending his trial. I am satisfied that suitable conditions can be imposed to sufficiently reduce the risks.
Proposed residential condition
The first condition that has been proposed on behalf of the applicant is that he reside at an address in another town, which is some considerable distance from the town where the offending is alleged to have occurred. It is proposed that he live with his cousin, Mr S, who is also referred to as his 'cultural brother'. I was informed by the applicant's counsel that the applicant's cousin regards the applicant as a 'cultural little brother'.
Concerns have been raised about the residence. In the first place it is a duplex and there is a resident in the adjoining unit. Inquiries made by the police have indicated that teenage females on occasions visit that adjoining unit. There is a concern, therefore, that the applicant may come into contact with those teenage females.
Concerns have also been raised in relation to Mr S, the occupant of the residence where it is proposed that the applicant will stay. Mr S is sight impaired. I was informed that he receives support pursuant to an NDIS plan that involves at least one support worker coming to his residence. I do not have details of the frequency of those visits, or for how long the support worker stays there, or precisely what it is that the support worker is required to do. However, there is an indication that someone else will be in attendance at the address from time to time to assist Mr S.
There are two other matters that are of greater significance in terms of the suitability of Mr S as someone with whom the applicant should be residing.
The first is that he has an extensive criminal record. However, none of his offending has been of a sexual nature. He is also on bail for an alleged offence of criminal damage by fire. It seems to me that the fact that Mr S is on bail does not disqualify him from being a suitable sponsor for the purposes of the applicant residing at his home on bail. No doubt, Mr S is well aware of the need for compliance with the conditions of bail and the potential consequences of failing to comply with such conditions.
The other matter of concern in respect of Mr S is that when a police officer visited him in the morning to enquire about his willingness to have the applicant living with him, Mr S appeared to be intoxicated with alcohol. That would suggest that not only does he consume alcohol, but he consumes it at a level that might be of some concern, when it will be necessary for the applicant to abstain from consuming alcohol. However, the applicant has indicated that he is prepared to abide by such a condition to abstain from consuming alcohol, and there are measures that can be put in place to monitor his compliance. Any failure to comply with that condition would put the applicant in jeopardy of returning to custody and remaining in custody until his trial.
I have come to the view, ultimately, that the concerns that have been raised in relation to Mr S, do not prevent him from being someone with whom the applicant can reside as part of a residential bail condition. The State has not submitted otherwise, having regard to the other conditions that can be imposed. In my view, that concession is properly made.
Whether conditions can reduce the risks to an acceptable level – conclusions
The applicant has indicated through his counsel that he would be prepared to comply with other conditions that I referred to during the hearing. Given that the alleged offending occurred while the applicant had consumed an excessive amount of cannabis and alcohol, and having regard to his history in respect of substance use, to which I referred earlier, I am of the view that it would be appropriate to impose a condition that would prohibit him from consuming such substances or drinking alcohol, and requiring him to submit to testing that would ensure the authorities could monitor whether he was consuming alcohol or prohibited drugs.
I am of the view that combing the residential condition, which would require him to reside at a location which is geographically significantly distant from the townsite where the offences are alleged to have occurred, with further conditions, namely:
1.conditions prohibiting him from using drugs and alcohol;
2.conditions that would prohibit him from having unsupervised contact with children under the age of 16 years;
3.the specific protective bail conditions in relation to the complainant and the other child witness (to whom I referred in stating the alleged facts); and
4.a curfew condition,
the risk of the applicant committing an offence of the kind that has been alleged against him, or interfering with the complainant or the other child witness by being in contact with them, would be sufficiently reduced, as to make the keeping of the applicant in custody no longer appropriate. I have come to that conclusion in the context that the applicant intends to plead not guilty and that a trial of this matter would take some time before it could occur in the District Court.
I am satisfied that the applicant is likely to comply with the protective bail conditions, given that he complied with the direction given to him by the Department of Communities, which required him to leave the townsite where the offences are alleged to have occurred, not to enter the townsite and not to have contact with his 8‑year‑old daughter. In my view, that demonstration of his willingness to comply with conditions of that kind at a time that is proximate to this hearing outweighs the concerns that I expressed earlier in relation to the applicant's ability to comply with protective conditions, in light of his breach of bail in 2005.
In all the circumstances, therefore, I am satisfied that with the imposition of appropriate conditions of the kind to which I have referred, a grant of bail is appropriate in this case.
Order
Accordingly, the application is granted and the applicant will be released on bail on the following conditions, namely that the applicant must:
1.provide a personal undertaking in the sum of $1,000;
2.reside at [redacted];
3.abide by a curfew from 6.00 pm to 7.00 am;
4.not consume alcohol or any prohibited drugs;
5.submit to urinalysis testing for any illicit substances as directed by a police officer, with any positive result to be deemed a breach of bail;
6.provide a valid urine sample when required to do so, pursuant to any direction under the previous condition;
7.submit a sample of breath for analysis whenever requested by a police officer to do so, with any positive reading or a failure to comply with such a request to be deemed a breach of this condition;
8.have no contact with any child under the age of 16 years, unless the contact is supervised by an adult person or the contact is necessary to complete a commercial transaction and limited to the minimum contact required to complete the transaction, and another adult is present;
('Contact' under this condition means any form of interaction or communication whether by word, gesture, expression or touch, but does not include the bare minimum interaction or communication necessary between an adult and child to promptly and civilly terminate any inadvertent or uninvited interaction or communication.)
9.not to enter [redacted] (Protective Bail Condition); and
10.not contact or attempt to contact [redacted] or [redacted] by any means and not to approach or remain within 50 m of either of those persons or approach or remain within 50 m of where each of those persons lives or is educated (Protective Bail Condition).
I certify that the preceding paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
EP
Associate to the Honourable Justice Fiannaca
8 SEPTEMBER 2021
0
2
1