Re application for bail by Biancotto
[2021] VSC 754
•17 November 2021
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2021 0290
| IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 | |
| v | |
| IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by ROBERT BIANCOTTO | Applicant |
---
JUDGE: | Niall JA |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 10 November 2021 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 17 November 2021 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Re application for bail by Biancotto |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2021] VSC 754 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Applicant charged with contravening family violence intervention order, persistent contravention of family violence intervention order, and other matters – Whether exceptional circumstances established – Unacceptable risk – First time in custody – Bail refused – Bail Act 1977 ss 1B, 3AAA, 4A, 4AA, 4D, 4E, 5AAAA.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant | Mr J Saunders | Denning Legal |
| For the Respondent | Mr N Watt | Legal Services Department, Victoria Police |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
By application dated 26 October 2021, Robert Biancotto (‘the applicant’) seeks bail in this Court in relation to two matters brought by Detective Senior Constable Kim Jackson.
The first Jackson matter
On 16 September 2021, the applicant was arrested and remanded on 33 charges alleged to have occurred between 12 March and 15 September 2021, and comprising a number of offences of violence and breaches of an intervention order in respect of a former intimate partner of the applicant. A number of charges are alternatives. The applicant was granted bail in the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court on these charges (‘the first Jackson matter’), subject to various conditions which will be detailed below. [1]
[1]Being charges of reckless conduct endangering life; intentionally causing injury (three counts); recklessly causing injury (three counts); unlawful assault (two counts); contravene interim FVIO intending to cause harm or fear for safety (four counts); commit indictable offence whilst on bail (five counts); common assault (two counts); persistent contravention of FVIO (two counts); contravene interim FVIO (eight counts); make threat to kill; use carriage service to harass; and stalking.
The second Jackson matter
On 1 October 2021, whilst on bail for the first Jackson matter, the applicant was again arrested and remanded on a further 16 charges alleged to have occurred between 22 September and 1 October 2021 comprising:[2]
[2]Albeit noting that charge 16, contravene interim FVIO, was not issued until a later date.
(a) contravene interim Family Violence Intervention Order (‘FVIO’) (six counts);
(b) persistent contravention of FVIO;
(c) contravene conduct condition of bail (five counts);
(d) use carriage service to harass;
(e) commit indictable offence whilst on bail (two counts); and
(f) possess cannabis.
The applicant has been on remand since his arrest in the second Jackson matter on 1 October 2021. He was refused bail in that matter in the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court on 20 October 2021, on the basis that he failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances that justified the grant of bail. The same day, bail in the first Jackson matter was revoked.
Both matters are next listed in the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court on 24 November 2021 for mention.
The alleged offending
Background
The applicant and complainant (‘TM’) have known each other for approximately two years and were in an intimate relationship. In or around December 2020, TM ended the relationship due to escalating volatility.
On 21 January 2021, the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court made an interim FVIO naming the applicant as the respondent and TM as the affected family member. The interim FVIO remains in effect until final order and contains full no-contact conditions, subject to limited exceptions being communications through a lawyer, making counselling or mediation arrangements, and attending TM’s home to collect personal property if in the company of a police officer.
It is apparent that, notwithstanding both TM’s attempts to break off the relationship and the making of the interim FVIO, the applicant and TM continued to have contact. The allegations against the applicant arise in this context and are summarised as follows.
The first Jackson matter
On 14 September 2021, TM’s neighbours called the police to attend TM’s home for a welfare check. Upon police arrival, TM was observed to be distressed and told police she was being harassed by phone. Whilst present, police witnessed TM’s phone ring approximately 20 times and heard a number of voicemail messages left containing abusive and violent threats, including to ‘slice [TM’s] neck’ and ‘slice [TM] open’.
TM disclosed a number of historical assaults and FVIO breaches, including:
(a) 12 March 2021: TM was at the applicant’s home and they had an argument resulting in the applicant throwing her out of the house, pinning her against a wall, and strangling her until she lost consciousness, causing bruising and scarring to her throat. TM provided police with timestamped photographs.
(b) 18 July 2021: the applicant became angry while driving and grabbed TM by the hair, smashed her face into the dashboard and window, stopped the car, and attempted to pull her from it. TM sustained bruises, scratches, and hair loss. She provided an audio recording to police in which the applicant can be heard aggressively screaming at, threatening, and striking her as she begs him to stop.
(c) 3 August 2021: the applicant punched TM in the mouth and eye, resulting in swelling and one of her teeth becoming loose. He then struck her on the leg with a small wooden table and bit her on the arm. TM provided photographs of bruises, teeth marks, and scratches.
(d) 17 August 2021: the applicant punched TM in the eye and threw her around his bedroom ‘like a rag doll’.
(e) Between 8 and 13 September 2021: the applicant called TM 1,423 times.
(f) 14 September 2021: the applicant called TM 155 times. TM attended her sister’s address and then returned to her new home, before calling the applicant to tell him she had reported him to the police and to stop calling her. The applicant then said that he knew where her new home was and that he was in a nearby park, before threatening to slit her throat and ‘get’ her. TM believes the applicant waited at her sister’s home and followed her car to find her new address.
(g) 15 September 2021: the applicant called TM 224 times.
Police attended the applicant’s home on 16 September 2021 and arrested the applicant. On 21 September 2021, after five days in custody he was granted bail in the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court on conditions that he:
(a) report to Reservoir Police Station on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays between 6.00 am and 9.00 pm (when permitted);
(b) reside at his parents’ address in Kingsbury;
(c) not leave Victoria;
(d) not contact witnesses for the prosecution, other than the informant;
(e) comply with all requirements of the Court Integrated Services Program (‘CISP’);
(f) comply with the intervention order in case number L11882586 and dated 21 January 2021[3];
[3]The Order dated 21 September 2021 refers to an intervention order dated 31 January 2021. This was presumably intended to be a reference to the interim FVIO dated 21 January 2021
(g) not use drugs of dependence;
(h) not leave his residence unless accompanied by his father;
(i) not use or possess a mobile phone; and
(j) attend at the front door of his residence if requested by police.
The second Jackson matter
Between 22 and 26 September 2021, it is alleged that the applicant breached the interim FVIO and his bail conditions by calling, text messaging, and leaving voicemail messages on TM’s phone a total of 1,328 times from two different numbers.
Police checks revealed:
(a) the two mobile numbers contacting TM were registered under the name Jack McDonald at an address in Ivanhoe East. Mr McDonald was identified and located by police, and made a statement to the effect that:
(i) he only had one mobile number and did not have any knowledge of the numbers used to contact TM;
(ii) he had not resided at the Ivanhoe East address since 2009; and
(iii) he had his wallet and identification stolen from his car in 2012.
(b) the calls came from approximately eight mobile towers within a few kilometres of the applicant’s home, and on one occasion, the mobile phone number was pinging off towers consistent with the applicant travelling towards TM’s home and then back to his home whilst continuously calling her; and
(c) there were calls from one of the numbers to the applicant’s father, mother, brother, and a known associate.
On 1 October 2021, police attended the applicant’s home, arrested him, and seized a sim card, iPad, iPhone, cannabis, and a letter to his parents reading:
Dad apparently they said I’ve called 3 times off your phone and mums and they are coming to arrest me. Say it was you and mum trying to call her to speak to her, youse (sic) are allowed too (sic). She has my back this time as well she said nah he never called there (sic) phone. She is going to drop most of the charges which is a good thing she told me she would. Just say it was you & mum Robert does not use the phone whatsoever, his (sic) been under my eyes 24/7 and doesn’t have a phone to even use. I love you, don’t worry they have nothing on me if you just say it was me & my wife trying to ring to talk to her. We are allowed to make contact that’s only if they bring your phone and mums phone up ok. I love you dad.
The applicant stated during an interview with police that the letter was written prior to his release on 21 September, and that the iPad was his mother’s, however, she stated she did not use it or know the password. The sim card that was seized was held in the name of Mr McDonald.
Outstanding matters
In addition to the remand matters detailed above, the applicant currently faces charges in five other matters for which he is currently on summons or bail, as follows.
Dolling matter
On 27 December 2020, after ending her relationship with the applicant, TM attended his home to collect her property. As TM walked to the applicant’s bedroom he grabbed her by the neck with both hands. His father attempted to intervene, but the applicant grabbed TM and pulled her by the hair. TM broke free and ran to her car. As she attempted to leave, the applicant kicked and damaged a panel of her car.
On 4 June 2021, the applicant was charged on summons by Constable Nicholas Dolling with recklessly cause injury; common assault; criminal damage; and contravene interim FVIO.
This matter is also listed for mention in the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court on 24 November 2021.
Campbell matter
Between 1 and 21 April 2021, the applicant called TM 7,244 times.
On 8 April 2021, the applicant became verbally abusive to TM whilst driving, punched her twice to the jaw, and pulled her by the hair.
On 6 June 2021, police attended the applicant’s residence and observed him with TM, in contravention of the interim FVIO.
On 20 July 2021, the applicant was charged by Detective Senior Constable Melissa Campbell with contravene interim FVIO (five counts); common assault; persistent contravention of a FVIO; and commit an indictable offence whilst on bail. The same day, the applicant was granted bail in the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court with conditions that included residing at his parents’ home, reporting to police, and complying with the intervention order.[4] The applicant remains on bail for this matter, which is next listed in the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court on 3 December 2021.
[4]This appears to be a reference to the interim FVIO dated 21 January 2021.
Other matters
On 24 August 2021, police executed a search warrant at the applicant’s residence and seized approximately 46 grams of cannabis. He was arrested and charged by Senior Constable Brayden McGuiness with possess a drug of dependence (cannabis) and committing an indictable offence whilst on bail. These charges are listed for mention on 17 December 2021. In addition, there are two instances of driving offences.[5]
[5]Informant Bramley and Harrison.
The applicable legislation
Because the applicant is charged with schedule 2 offences within the meaning of the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’) (here, for example, offences against the Act),[6] which are alleged to have occurred whilst on bail for other schedule 2 offences (here, for example, persistent contravention of a FVIO),[7] bail must be refused unless the applicant can satisfy the Court that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail.[8] In determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, the Court must take into account the relevant ‘surrounding circumstances’, including those in s 3AAA(1) of the Act.[9]
[6]Bail Act 1977 sch 2, item 30.
[7]Bail Act 1977 sch 2, item 19.
[8]Bail Act 1977 ss 4AA(2)(c)(i), 4A(1A) and 4A(2).
[9]Bail Act 1977 s 4A(3).
If satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail, bail must still be refused if the respondent satisfies the Court that there is a risk of a kind set out in s 4E(1)(a) of the Act and that such risk is unacceptable.[10] In considering this, the Court must take into account the ‘surrounding circumstances’ and consider whether there are any conditions of bail that may be imposed to mitigate the risk so that it is not unacceptable.[11]
[10]Bail Act 1977 ss 4D(1)(a) and 4E.
[11]Bail Act 1977 s 4E(3).
Finally, when interpreting and applying the Act, the Court is required to take into account the guiding principles set out in s 1B(1) of the Act.[12]
[12]Bail Act 1977 s 1B(2).
Intervention orders and family violence risk
Section 5AAAA(2) of the Act requires the Court considering the release of a person charged with a family violence offence to consider whether, if the accused were released on bail, there would be a risk that the accused would commit family violence and whether that risk could be mitigated by the imposition of a bail condition, or the making of a FVIO.
As described above, the applicant is currently the respondent to an interim FVIO made in the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court on 21 January 2021, which lists TM as the affected family member and contains full non-contact conditions with limited exclusions.
The applicant’s personal circumstances
The applicant is 25 years old. He has diagnoses of attention deficit disorder (‘ADD’) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (‘ADHD’). He has a history of drug use, reportedly using methamphetamine daily for seven years and also having a cannabis dependency. He does not currently take medication but has previously been prescribed Ritalin. He has engaged with a psychologist in the past.
Three letters of the applicant’s doctor at Bundoora Medical Clinic, Dr Stephen Ahern, have been provided outlining the applicant’s vulnerability in custody. They note the following:
(a) 20 September 2021: Dr Ahern opines that the applicant’s history of ADD and ADHD make him extremely vulnerable in custody, particularly due to COVID-19 restrictions.
(b) 1 October 2021: Dr Ahern repeats his earlier sentiments, and opines that the applicant’s ongoing remand will be ‘catastrophic’ for his mental health. Dr Ahern states that arrangements for urgent psychological intervention have been made, but does not detail those plans.
(c) 27 October 2021: Dr Ahern states that he has been updated on the applicant’s wellbeing by the applicant’s parents, who are of the view that his condition has worsened markedly with his anxiety rising to ‘alarming levels.’ He has reportedly experienced profuse sweating and nightmares. Dr Ahern states that he is ‘more concerned than ever’ about the applicant’s condition and believes it is imperative that he be released from custody.
In addition to the above matters, the applicant submits that it is likely he also has undiagnosed mental health concerns and he proposes immediate psychological treatment with Georgina Georgiou if granted bail.[13] An appointment was scheduled with Ms Georgiou on 16 October 2021, but due to the applicant being on remand he was unable to attend at that time and it has been rescheduled.
[13]Affidavit in support [11]. No supporting material has been provided.
Criminal history
The applicant has a limited criminal history, comprising mainly driving offences. In 2014, he was subject to an adjourned undertaking for offences of threat to inflict serious injury and unlawful assault, which was discharged after 12 months due to compliance. In January 2021, he was issued a fine in the Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court for a single offence of theft.
The applicant’s contentions
Exceptional circumstances
In seeking to make out exceptional circumstances, the applicant relies heavily on his submission that, although the offending is serious and may warrant a term of imprisonment, there is a real risk that the time on remand will exceed any sentence imposed. He submits that the risk is heightened given reductions to sentences on account of the harsh conditions of incarceration and because a combination sentence is a real possibility. It is submitted that it is not possible to predict when a contested hearing would be heard but it is likely to be in the middle of 2022.
The applicant submits that there are triable issues in the second Jackson matter, as well as ‘most if not all of the assault charges’. He denies contacting TM by phone, and in support of this:
(a) notes that call records and forensic analysis indicate that the calls in question were not made from the applicant’s phone or from a location where he was based at the time the calls were made;
(b) notes that his father gave sworn evidence that he did not leave the family home alone;
(c) submits that the letter to the applicant’s parents seized during arrest pre-dates the second Jackson matter, and was likely written in or around mid-September; and
(d) submits that the voicemail messages also pre-date the second Jackson matter and were likely ‘re-recorded’ onto TM’s phone.
The applicant has strong ties to the jurisdiction having lived in Melbourne his whole life. His parents support him and it is proposed he reside with them at their home in Kingsbury, along with his older brother. His father has ceased work to provide ‘considerable supervision’.
In this respect, the applicant’s family have said they have CCTV, including in the applicant’s bedroom, that will act as a deterrent, aid supervision, and be available to investigators to ensure the applicant’s compliance with bail.
The applicant also proposes to receive support in the community through CISP. He was assessed in custody on 21 September 2021 and recommended for a period of case management to address drug use, mental health issues, and family violence behaviours. He reportedly engaged with CISP for one session following his release on bail in the first Jackson matter and prior to his remand in the second Jackson matter 10 days later. A second report also states that the applicant would be suitable for assistance under this program. The report notes that a support plan has been arranged for the applicant, with a further assessment to occur in relation to the applicant’s substance abuse and alcohol issues. Whilst the report acknowledged that the applicant’s family had arranged mental health support for him, the applicant was encouraged to enquire in relation to an anger management course.
The applicant was assaulted in custody on or around 3 October 2021 and contracted COVID-19, which has significantly impacted his mental health. He had spent 22 days in solitary confinement as at the date the application was filed on 26 October 2021, and his solicitor anticipated it was likely he would remain in isolation for at least fourteen more days having returned a further positive test on 25 October. On the day of hearing this application, I was informed that the applicant remained in solitary confinement.
The applicant submits that he has been compliant with his bail conditions and has only left his home in the company of his father. He denies that he has breached the interim FVIO whilst on bail.
Unacceptable risk
The applicant submits that strict conditions of bail, availability of drug and mental health treatment, strong ties to the jurisdiction, support from his family, and stable accommodation (including CCTV in his bedroom and the front and rear yard of the property) would mitigate any risk to an acceptable level. The conditions of bail proposed include to reside with his parents, not leave home unless in their company, present at the front door when requested by police, report daily to police by phone, not use or possess a mobile phone, not leave Victoria or Australia or attend any international departure points, not contact witnesses, comply with CISP and health care directions, and not use drugs.
The applicant submits that most of the alleged physical offending against TM is said to have occurred in the applicant’s home. He says that at the time his parents were unaware of the extent of the intervention order and that the applicant was not permitted to have contact with TM. The applicant says his parents now have a fuller picture and are better placed to supervise him and prevent contact with TM.
The respondent’s contentions
Exceptional circumstances
The respondent opposes the application on the basis that the applicant has not established exceptional circumstances that justify the grant of bail. Further, it is submitted that, if granted bail, he poses an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of any person, committing an offence, and interfering with a witness or otherwise obstructing the course of justice.
In response to the applicant’s claims in relation to the strength of the prosecution case, the respondent relies on evidence from TM, text messages, voicemails, call records and locations, and forensic analysis of the devices and sim cards seized to support the prosecution case. Although it is conceded that the sim card and devices are not linked to the calls made, the respondent submits that it is reasonable to believe that the applicant disposed of any phones or sim cards that he used as he had knowledge that he was going to be arrested.
The respondent also submits that the letter written to the applicant’s parents could not have pre-dated the first Jackson matter as its contents reference incidents that occurred after this time.
The respondent submits that the applicant has demonstrated a propensity for family violence shown through the current offending and unprosecuted family violence incidents attended to by police and involving similar behaviour. He has been listed as the respondent in a total of 18 family violence incidents involving TM and two former partners, and five incidents involving violence against his parents.
TM has told police that she lives in constant fear for both herself and her family. She is unable to sleep and constantly feels anxious and nervous. She believes she is at risk of serious harm and even death. However, she stated she has been ‘somewhat at ease’ whilst the applicant has been in custody, but believes he will immediately offend if released.
Unacceptable risk
The respondent submits that there is a serious risk to the safety and welfare of TM if the applicant is released on bail given his continuous attempts to control TM since the relationship commenced, in addition to his threats, history of family violence, and knowledge of where TM and her family reside.
The respondent submits that there is a risk of further offending if released on bail and that the applicant has shown a complete disregard for bail conditions, which he has demonstrated by breaching conditions the day after being released on bail.
The respondent submits that the applicant has repeatedly contacted TM and pressured her to withdraw her complaint, which the respondent submits is likely to continue if the applicant is granted bail.
Decision
Having regard to the charges he faces, in order to be granted bail the applicant must satisfy the Court that there are exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of bail.
In Re Sam[14] Beach JA said:
The Bail Act does not define what are exceptional circumstances. It is trite that, in order to be exceptional, the circumstances relied upon must be such as to take the case out of the normal so as to justify the admission of the applicant to bail, notwithstanding the very serious nature of the charge against her. Exceptional circumstances may, in an appropriate case, consist of a combination of a number of circumstances relating both to the strength of the prosecution case against the applicant and the personal circumstances of the applicant.[15]
[14][2017] VSC 91.
[15]Ibid [22] (citations omitted); See also, Re CT [2018] VSC 559.
In Roberts v The Queen,[16] the Court of Appeal noted a common thread that can be seen amongst the type of factors that have given rise to exceptional circumstances. The Court said:
What appears to underpin the judicial recognition of these different types of circumstances as justifying a grant of bail is that they are seen to render continued pre-trial detention unjust, even in relation to very serious offending ...
It is the perceived need to avert or mitigate such injustice which justifies the grant of bail — provided always that the circumstances can properly be characterised as exceptional.[17]
[16][2021] VSCA 28.
[17]Ibid [47]–[48] (Maxwell P, Niall and Emerton JJA) (emphasis in original).
The main purposes of remand are to ensure that an accused person attends for trial and to protect against any interference with the administration of justice or risk of further offending pending trial. Those important goals arise in a context where there is a presumption of innocence and a high value on liberty. To an extent, the Act affects the relationship between these potentially competing aspects by reference to the nature of the alleged offending. At the same time, the Act requires the court to take into account all of the circumstances of the case.
The applicant relies on a prediction that given the delay between now and a contested hearing, he will have served on remand, in very onerous conditions, all or a substantial part of any sentence that might be imposed if he is found guilty. I accept that there is a high risk of injustice if an accused person is incarcerated for the whole or a substantial period of any sentence that might be imposed in the event of a finding of guilt. It risks inverting the true course of justice that has punishment follow and not precede a finding of guilt. Further, it is liable to place pressure on persons charged with offences to compromise their right to stand trial. Although institutional delays may make these outcomes more common, delay of this kind may still constitute, or form an important component of, exceptional circumstances.
The weight to be accorded to delay depends on all of the circumstances and is not liable to be reduced to a simple mathematical equation. In this case, the contested hearing will be in the Magistrates’ Court, which is not suffering the delays caused by the pandemic that have been associated with jury trials, and on present estimates, the contested hearing is likely to be in the first half of next year. On the other hand, the allegations are serious, involve numerous charges in relation to alleged offending that occurred over a protracted period of time, and if found proven may well result in a term of imprisonment.
I accept that the period on remand will be very onerous for the applicant. He has been diagnosed with a number of mental health disorders, has not been in custody before, and has already suffered long periods of isolation due to the risk of COVID-19 infection. The opinion of Dr Ahern is expressed in brief terms and is not supported by much history or underlying material. Nevertheless, I accept that the burden of incarceration will be significant.
Notwithstanding these matters, I am not satisfied that the circumstances relied on by the applicant are such as to take the case out of the ordinary and constitute exceptional circumstances.
Even if I were satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances justifying bail, for the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that the applicant is an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety of TM, or interfering with a witness or otherwise obstructing the course of justice, or committing an offence on bail.[18]
[18]Bail Act 1977 sub-ss 4E(1)(a)(i), (ii), (iii) and (b).
I am particularly troubled by the sequence of alleged offending. According to the prosecution case, the applicant and TM were in a domestic relationship that was associated with a high level of abuse and harassment. The applicant was charged on 20 July 2021 with breaches of an FVIO and assault, and bailed. The conditions of his bail were designed to prevent further offending.
On 16 September 2021, the applicant was again arrested for breaching the interim FVIO and for assault. The number of alleged contacts was very high. For example, police allege that the applicant called TM 1,423 times between 8 and 13 September. Again, on the prosecution case it appears that being on bail did not prevent further offending.
On 21 September 2021, after five days in custody in police cells, the applicant was bailed on strict conditions. According to the prosecution case, the applicant used devices registered in the name of Mr McDonald, who has no apparent connection to the people involved, to contact TM 1,328 times within a few days of being released on bail.
The allegations, if true, show a willingness to use covert means to contact TM and involve a degree of subterfuge that shows a striking breach of both the intervention orders and bail conditions, and a most concerning lack of control on the part of the applicant. They would also constitute a flagrant breach of bail. Further, the letter allegedly written by him to his father shows a willingness on his part to involve his parents in covering up wrongdoing.
I accept that some of the offending against TM occurred at the applicant’s family home when the applicant’s parents did not know the details of the FVIO. It may be the case that his parents are now better informed about the true position and this would make them more vigilant. However, the latest alleged offending occurred after the applicant was bailed on 21 September and the applicant was prevented from leaving home unless accompanied by his father. I am not satisfied that supervision by the applicant’s parents is adequate to address the risks to TM or of further offending on bail.
I am also not persuaded that the foreshadowed appointment with Ms Georgiou and the willingness on her part to accept the applicant as a client, and the level of supervision noted in the CISP report, are adequate to allay my significant concerns.
I also take into account the fact that the existing time on remand is, in effect, the applicant’s first experience of incarceration apart from five days on remand in police cells before he was granted bail on 21 September 2021 in the first Jackson matter. This period of remand would provide a significant incentive to the applicant to avoid further offending while on bail. However, I am not satisfied that this spur would provide sufficient protection against offending and that the continuing risk, given the recent alleged past history on bail, is unacceptable.
The application for bail is refused.
---
0
3
0