Re Application for Bail by Wilson
[2021] VSC 22
•29 January 2021
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2020 0168
| IN THE MATTER OF the Bail Act 1977 |
| and |
| IN THE MATTER OF an Application for Bail by Jessica WILSON |
---
JUDGE: | COGHLAN JA |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 22 December 2020 and 13 January 2021 |
DATE OF ORDER: | 13 January 2021 |
DATE OF REASONS: | 29 January 2021 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Re Application for Bail by Wilson |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2021] VSC 22 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Murder – Exceptional circumstances established – No unacceptable risk – Bail granted.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant | Mr A Waters | Martin Middleton Oates Lawyers |
| For the Respondent | Mr M Gibson QC | Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
HIS HONOUR:
On 20 September 2019, Jessica Wilson (‘the applicant’) killed her domestic partner, Marcus Adams (‘the deceased’), by stabbing him in the back during the course of a domestic dispute. That same day, she was charged with his murder and remanded in custody, where she remained for almost 16 months.
On 22 December 2020, and again on 13 January 2021, the matter came before me as an application for bail.[1] I granted the application and indicated that I would provide my reasons. These are those reasons.
[1]Only this Court, or a court committing a person for trial, can grant bail to a person accused of murder. See the Bail Act 1977, s 13(2) (‘the Act’).
The alleged offending
The applicant and the deceased commenced a relationship in late 2018 or early 2019. Soon after, they began living with the deceased’s parents and remained there for nine months before moving out to a caravan park in Port Fairy in mid-August 2019. No signs of aggression were observed between the applicant and the deceased during the period that they were living with the deceased’s parents. They were, by all appearances, a happy couple.
On 24 August 2019, the applicant was involved in a serious car accident. She was airlifted to Melbourne for emergency treatment and later transferred to Geelong Hospital for residual treatment and care. The deceased visited the applicant regularly whilst she was in hospital, often staying in Melbourne days on end to tend to her.
The applicant was discharged from hospital on 19 September 2019 and returned to Port Fairy. That afternoon, she and the deceased attended the canteen at their caravan park and were observed to be happy, although ‘affected by something’, in that they had slurred speech, were moving slowly and did not appear to be fully cognisant of their surroundings.
That evening, and into the early hours of the following morning, neighbours heard intermittent arguing and banging coming from the couple’s caravan. A number of witnesses provided accounts of what they heard, including a female voice yelling ‘you drug-fucked dog’ followed by a male or female voice (depending on the particular witness) saying ‘leave me alone’; the sounds of a male and female arguing, with the female screaming at the male; the sounds of ‘jumping around on a wooden floor’, followed by a female repeatedly saying ‘get off me, cunt’ and subsequently running out of the caravan yelling for help; a female screaming ‘give me my wallet’; and two male voices arguing.
At 2.31 am, the applicant called ‘000’ and stated, amongst other things, that:
(a) She and the deceased had been embroiled in a ‘domestic’ and that she had armed herself with a knife for protection.
(b) She was not assaulted during the ‘domestic’.
(c) The deceased had been shaking her while she was holding a knife and he fell ‘on the knife on the back’.
(d) She was holding the knife to protect herself and the deceased ran at her, at which time she stabbed him ‘into the back somewhere’.
(e) She removed the knife from the deceased’s back.
Police attended and found the deceased unconscious on the floor of the couple’s caravan. The applicant was leaning over him, reportedly attempting to administer CPR. There were, amongst other things, two kitchen knives and a hammer observed in the caravan.
Notwithstanding resuscitation attempts, the deceased ultimately succumbed to his injuries.
The applicant was arrested and taken to Warrnambool Police Station for interview. She was examined by a nurse, Kate Sloan, who observed redness, bruising and tenderness to her neck. The applicant described soreness and reported to Ms Sloan that the deceased had been taking steroids which made him angry, and further that he had grabbed her by the throat and threatened her with a hammer. She indicated that she had responded by stabbing the deceased with a knife. Dr Joanne Brown performed a CT scan on the applicant, which did not detect any injuries to the neck. Dr Brown later gave evidence to the effect that CT scans can only detect injury of a certain level.
During her record of interview, the applicant stated, amongst other things, that:
(a) ‘[The deceased’s] never been violent towards me [in the] couple [sic] years we’ve known each other.’
(b) ‘I was defending myself, cause [the deceased’s] a lot bigger than me.’
(c) ‘[The deceased] wasn’t swinging at me or anything, but I had no intention of doing anything, but he’s the type of person that will walk up to the knife and just push it into himself and say you know, “go on stab me, cut my throat. ”’
(d) ‘… It was an altercation, it wasn’t just a verbal argument and I was defending myself.’
(e) ‘This morning [the deceased] grabbed me by the throat.’
(f) ‘It’s not like I planned or premeditated to murder him.’
(g) ‘It was all the outcome of what had started with the events leading up to that final moment.’
A post-mortem examination of the deceased’s body revealed a single stab wound to the left posterolateral chest wall (left side of the upper back) which passed superior to inferior (above to below), posterior to anterior (back to front), and left to right. The wound was approximately 15 centimetres in depth, and the examining pathologist, Dr Matthew Lynch, was of the opinion that it would have required ‘at least moderate force’ to inflict. He concluded that the cause of death was ‘stab wound to chest’. Lacerations were also found on the deceased’s left wrist, which Dr Lynch stated may represent defence-type injuries, although not necessarily.
As stated, on 20 September 2019, the applicant was charged with the deceased’s murder and remanded in custody. The Crown case is put on the basis that, during the course of a verbal dispute in the early hours of the morning on 20 September 2019, the applicant armed herself with a knife and fatally stabbed the deceased in the back as he attempted to disarm her.
As is clear, the applicant will seek to rely on the defence of self-defence at trial. In support of this, it is the applicant’s evidence that the deceased threatened her with a hammer; grabbed her around the neck; shook her; and pushed her head up against the bunk beds in their caravan. While the applicant does not dispute that she stabbed the deceased during the course of the altercation, it is her evidence that her conduct was in self-defence and further that she did not intend to cause death or really serious injury.
Against this, it is the Crown’s position that, if the deceased did engage in threatening behaviour towards the applicant (including possible ‘minor man-handling’), the applicant was not acting in self-defence when she stabbed him and did not believe her conduct to be necessary to defend herself against death or really serious injury. That is, notwithstanding the possibility that the deceased displayed aggressive behaviour towards the applicant, it is the Crown’s position that the applicant’s conduct was extreme and disproportionate to any perceived threat.
Applicable test
When interpreting and applying the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’), I am required to have regard to the guiding principles set out in s 1B.[2] This includes, amongst other things, maximising the safety of the community and persons affected by crime to the greatest extent possible, and taking account of the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty.[3]
[2]The Act, s 1B(2).
[3]Ibid, s 1B(1)(a)-(b).
For the purposes of the Act, murder is a Schedule 1 offence.[4] It follows that bail must be refused unless the applicant satisfies me that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail.[5] In considering whether exceptional circumstances exist, I must take into account the relevant ‘surrounding circumstances’, including those prescribed in s 3AAA.[6]
[4]Ibid, Schedule 1, item 2.
[5]Ibid ss 4AA(1), 4A(1)-(2).
[6]Ibid s 4A(3).
In order to reach the threshold of exceptional circumstances, the circumstances relied upon by the applicant ‘must be such as to take the case out of the normal, so as to justify the admission of the applicant to bail’.[7] Exceptional circumstances may be established by reason of a single exceptional circumstance, or through a combination of factors, including personal factors pertaining to the applicant, the strength or weakness of the prosecution case, undue delay in bringing the matter to trial, or unusual features of the alleged offending or investigation.[8]
[7]Re CT [2018] VSC 559 [64] citing with approval Re Sam [2017] VSC 91.
[8]Ibid [65] citing with approval Re Fairest [2015] VSC 375.
If satisfied as to the existence of exceptional circumstances, I must apply the unacceptable risk test.[9] The Act mandates that I must refuse bail if satisfied by the respondent that there is an unacceptable risk of the kind set out in s 4E(1)(a).[10] At this second step, I must again have regard to the surrounding circumstances in s 3AAA and consider whether there are any conditions of bail that might be imposed to mitigate the risk so that it is not unacceptable.[11]
[9]The Act, ss 4A(4) and 4D(1)(a).
[10]Ibid, s 4E(2).
[11]Ibid, s 4E(3).
Finally, noting that the alleged offending occurred in a family violence context, the Court is required to consider whether, if the applicant were released on bail, she would pose a risk of committing family violence and whether that risk could be mitigated by the imposition of bail conditions or the making of a FVIO.[12] Plainly, the applicant poses no ongoing risk of family violence towards the deceased and the respondent did not otherwise seek to persuade me that the applicant was an unacceptable risk of committing family violence against any other person if granted bail.
[12]Ibid, s 5AAAA(2).
The applicant
The applicant is 36 years old. She has a seven-year old daughter from a previous relationship, currently in the care of her mother under a Care by Secretary Order. With respect to the applicant’s background, the material filed on the application cited somewhat conflicting narratives. On the one hand, an unremarkable upbringing, on the other, an extensive and complex history of trauma. In any event, it is clear that the applicant’s life spiralled downwards following the breakdown of a long-term relationship in 2007. She turned to illicit drugs (a vice which had led to her brother’s death just two years earlier), and by 2010 was using drugs intravenously on a regular basis. Since that time, the applicant has reportedly been burdened by bouts of depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation and self-harm. She has also experienced periods of homelessness. At the time of her arrest, the applicant was unemployed and undergoing a Suboxone program for addiction. She had only just been released from hospital following a serious car accident.
Criminal history
The applicant has a criminal history commencing in 2010, when she was 26 years old. It includes dispositions for dishonesty; driving; drug; and violent offences (including, as the respondent sought to rely on, a conviction for recklessly causing serious injury in 2012 involving the use of a knife). It also reveals a history of poor compliance with bail and court orders.
The applicant’s contentions
The applicant relied on the following matters to establish exceptional circumstances, with particular emphasis placed on the weakness of the prosecution case, delay and the onerous conditions in custody.
Strength of the prosecution case
It was submitted that there were slim prospects of the prosecution establishing murderous intent to the requisite standard, or excluding the reasonable possibility that the applicant acted in self-defence. The grounds for this submission can be summarised as follows:
(a) The applicant had only returned to the caravan park the day prior to the incident, following a serious car accident that resulted in a likely mild traumatic brain injury.
(b) The applicant’s various accounts of the incident, including having acted in self-defence, have remained consistent. During the 000 call, the applicant stated that she had stabbed the deceased to protect herself in the context of a physical domestic dispute. She maintained the same representation during her medical examination with Ms Sloan, and in her interview with police, wherein she said that she was defending herself from the deceased, who was on steroids, had a hammer, and had grabbed her throat.
(c) On arrival at the scene, the applicant was observed by police and paramedics attempting to resuscitate the deceased.
(d) Evidence given by the witnesses during s 198B hearings, as set out below, supports the self-defence argument.
(i) Ms Sloan, the examining nurse, agreed that the injuries she observed on the applicant were consistent with her report of having had someone’s hands around her neck at the relevant time.
(ii) Dr Lynch, the examining pathologist, gave evidence that it was ‘entirely possible’ that the deceased’s single stab wound could have been inflicted while he was on top of the applicant, strangling her.
(iii) Dr Brown, who performed the CT scan on the applicant, gave evidence that although the scan revealed no damage to the applicant’s vessels, soft tissue or spine of the neck, such a result is not uncommon in the majority of people who present with reported strangulation or neck compression.
(iv) Finally, with respect to civilian witnesses, Paul Smorthwaite gave evidence of hearing the applicant yelling ‘Get off me, cunt’, up to four times during the course of what sounded like ‘a domestic’. Another witness, Benjamin Ebbot, stated that he heard the applicant say ‘you’re a drug fucked dog’ and ‘leave me alone’. Noting that the prosecution relies on the evidence of Bronwyn Wallace to establish that the deceased said, ‘leave me alone’, issues were raised with the reliability of this evidence. Notwithstanding this, the applicant sought to rely on other aspects of Ms Wallace’s evidence, including Ms Wallace reporting that she heard the applicant say, ‘get up Marcus, get up’.
(e) A hammer was found in the caravan (consistent with the applicant’s evidence of being threatened with a hammer) and toxicology results indicated that the deceased had been taking anabolic steroids, which at the s 198B hearing Dr Dimitri Gerostamoulos confirmed can cause ‘aggressiveness… commonly termed “roid rage”’.
Delay
It was submitted by the applicant, and the prosecution accepted, that any trial may not proceed until 2022. This was to be considered with the fact that the applicant had already been in custody since her arrest on 20 September 2019.
Onerous conditions of custody
The applicant submitted that, due to the pandemic, the conditions during her time in custody were more onerous than they would have been otherwise. In particular, at the time the application was filed, in-person visits had been suspended since March 2020 with the effect that the applicant had been unable to have visits with her mother or daughter since that time.
Personal circumstances (suitable accommodation and family support) and bail support services
The applicant has been linked with the Women’s Justice Diversion Program (‘WJDP’), a branch of Women’s Housing Ltd, since October 2019. The WJDP works with women on remand to link them with housing and support services in the community with a view to improve psychosocial outcomes and reduce re-offending. Through the WJDP, the applicant was referred to ‘SalvoConnect’ and ‘Brophy Family and Youth Services’, which offer similar housing services in addition to material aid, food and psychosocial support as required. The applicant was also on a waitlist for priority public housing and said to have the support of her mother in sourcing longer-term accommodation.
At the time the application was filed, it was initially proposed that the applicant would reside in interim accommodation while longer-term accommodation was sourced. However, by the time the application came on for hearing before me on 22 December 2020, it was apparent that the arrangements made were not tenable. Accordingly, the application was adjourned to 13 January 2021, in order to allow time for alternative arrangements to be made. On that date, evidence was given to the effect that new interim accommodation had been secured and would be available to the applicant for four weeks, commencing from 18 January 2021, with the possibility of extension if required.
Unfortunately, after bail was granted to the applicant, she arrived at her accommodation only to be advised that – through no fault of her own – it would no longer be available to her for the period that had been arranged. WJDP has since secured further alternative accommodation which I have approved.
Special vulnerability
It was submitted that the applicant has a history of anxiety and depression, and in addition requires ongoing reviews, treatment and rehabilitation for injuries she sustained in a serious car accident prior to her remand (including fractures to her spine and sternum and a likely mild traumatic brain injury). While it was noted that appropriate referrals could be made to address these issues, there was no evidence of any specific arrangements having been made at the time the application came before me.
Unacceptable risk
Citing the Court of Appeal in El Nasher v DPP,[13] it was submitted that any risk posed by the applicant should be assessed in light of the matters identified above. Further, any risk can be made acceptable through the imposition of bail conditions as to residence; non-association with prosecution witnesses; curfew; and obtaining Court leave to change residential address or leave the State of Victoria.
[13][2020] VSCA 144 (Priest, T Forrest and Weinberg JJA).
The respondent’s contentions
The application for bail was opposed on the basis that the applicant had not discharged the burden of establishing the existence of exceptional circumstances. Particularly, it was submitted that there were no unusual features of the offending or the investigation,[14] and otherwise that none of the circumstances relied upon by the applicant, either alone or in combination, were exceptional. Further, the application was opposed on the basis that the applicant was said to be an unacceptable risk of the matters set out in s 4E(1)(a) of the Act. The respondent addressed the surrounding circumstances as follows:
[14]See Re CT [2018] VSC 559 [65] (Champion J).
Seriousness of the alleged offending and strength of the prosecution case
The offence of murder is of utmost seriousness, particularly when it occurs in the context of family violence.
The prosecution case is put on two bases. First, that the applicant attacked the deceased with a knife, inflicting a single fatal stab wound. Second, that the applicant, whilst being the object of some threatening behaviour by the deceased, proceeded to stab him whilst not acting in self-defence. It is submitted that the strength of the prosecution case depends on its ability to exclude self-defence, and that there is a ‘reasonable prospect’ of the prosecution being able to do that.
The matters relied in support of the prosecution case were as follows. First, the applicant accepts that she caused the deceased’s death by stabbing him in the back. Second, a witness heard the deceased telling the applicant to leave him alone in the period preceding his death. Third, according to the pathologist who examined the deceased’s body, the stab wound would have necessitated at least moderate force to inflict. It is submitted that, as a matter of logic, the applicant would have intended to kill or cause really serious injury to the deceased based on the depth of the stab wound (15cm). Fourth, it is open that the incised injuries on the deceased’s left hand were ‘defence type injuries’. Fifth, the applicant stated in her call to ‘000’ that the deceased had not assaulted her. She also stated in her record of interview that the deceased had never been violent towards her and had not been swinging at her ‘or anything’ (albeit she stated that the deceased had grabbed her by the throat). Finally, in any event, it is submitted that the applicant’s conduct in stabbing the deceased was extreme and disproportionate to any perceived threat.
Criminal history
It was submitted that the applicant has an extensive criminal history, noting dispositions for offences relating to violence, dishonesty and drugs. Most relevantly, and concerning, was said to be the applicant’s prior conviction for recklessly causing serious injury in 2012.
Previous bail compliance
It was submitted that the applicant has a demonstrated history of non-compliance with conditions of bail and court orders. She is said to have three ‘priors’ for committing indictable offences whilst on bail,[15] and nine for failing to answer bail.[16] The respondent relied on this history to submit that the applicant is either unwilling or incapable of complying with court orders.
[15]The applicant’s criminal record includes two, not three, dispositions for committing an indictable offence whilst on bail.
[16]The applicant’s criminal record includes six, not nine, dispositions for failing to answer bail. There were three additional three charges of failing to answer bail dismissed between 2013 and 2016.
Outstanding matters
It was submitted that, at the time of the alleged offending, the applicant was on a community correction order (‘CCO’). However, based on the applicant’s criminal record, the CCO in question expired more than three months prior to the alleged offending. The same CCO was ultimately cancelled on 9 December 2019 due to breaches.
Personal circumstances (suitable accommodation and family support)
With respect to the accommodation that was originally proposed by the applicant, the respondent noted that inquiries with the proprietor of that establishment revealed that there was no availability before the new year. Further, the proprietor was unaware of the applicant’s background and ‘appeared apprehensive’ at the prospect of having her stay given the circumstances. In any event, it was submitted more broadly that shorter-term accommodation with no monitoring or support was not appropriate and could not provide the applicant with the stability that she required. With respect to family support, the respondent submitted that both of the applicant’s parents had expressed concerns about the prospect of the applicant living in the same area. Her father in particular had apparently divulged significant reservations, citing the applicant’s ‘past history and family dynamics’. While the respondent conceded that the applicant’s mother remained supportive of the applicant, it was noted that she would be unable to house the applicant if for any reason her accommodation arrangements fell through.
Special vulnerability
The respondent submitted that, to the extent that the applicant had vulnerabilities, these could be addressed through routine monitoring and treatment in custody and did not amount to exceptional circumstances.
Bail support services
The respondent submitted that the applicant had had numerous opportunities to engage in treatment but failed to do so, even when faced with breach proceedings for non-compliance with community correction orders. In any event, and noting that no referrals to treatment services were actually in place, it was submitted that there was nothing exceptional about the availability of treatment to justify the grant of bail in this case.
Delay
It was submitted that this matter was continuing to progress without any additional delay occasioned by COVID-19. While it was acknowledged that there may be some delay in the matter reaching trial, it was submitted that any delay would not be of the kind that would satisfy the exceptional circumstances threshold when considered together with the balance of the surrounding circumstances.[17]
[17]In support of this contention, the respondent relied on the remarks made in Re Casale [2017] VSC 568 (Beach JA); Re Tong [2020] VSC 141 [33] (Tinney J); Re El-Refei [No 2] [2020] VSC 164 [21] (Incerti J); Re Nicholls [2020] 189 [35] (Incerti J); and Brown v The Queen [2020] VSCA 60 [48] (Priest and Weinberg JJA).
Likely sentence
The respondent noted that the applicant would have served 460 days in pre-sentence detention at the time the application came before me on 22 December 2020. Notwithstanding this period, it was submitted in view of the nature of the charge against the applicant, that any period on remand would be far outweighed by the sentence she would receive if found guilty of murdering the deceased.
Unacceptable risk
(a) Endangering the safety and welfare of any person. It was submitted that the applicant has an extensive criminal history, and has shown a propensity to use extreme violence, including a prior matter involving a stabbing, as demonstrated by her criminal record.
(b) Committing an offence whilst on bail. The applicant’s history of committing offences whilst on bail was relied upon, and the fact of the present allegations occurring only months after the expiry of a CCO. It was submitted that, whilst living alone without support, or in the event that the applicant returns to drug-use, there is a significant risk that the applicant will continue to commit offences in the community.
(c) Failing to appear in answer to bail. The applicant’s history of failing to answer bail was relied upon.
Analysis
There will be two central issues at trial. First, whether the requisite intent for murder can be proved with respect to the applicant, who has consistently disavowed any intention to kill (and, inferentially, cause really serious injury) to the deceased. Second, whether the defence of self-defence can be rebutted by the Crown.
The applicant has made various and substantial claims of self-defence, but, in the end, a careful analysis of the sequence of events will need to be carried out. There is no doubt that the applicant showed some signs of injury which support her claim to self-defence, and that her allegation that the deceased was armed with a hammer is supported at least to the extent that a hammer was found in the caravan where these matters occurred.
Of course, the question of self-defence would be viewed differently if it could be proved by the Crown that the first violent act that occurred between the parties was the applicant arming herself with a knife. Whether or not that can be established on the evidence of course remains to be seen. It is clear that the issue of self-defence is live in a proper sense, and as with a very high percentage of cases which involve a single stab wound, so is the issue of intent.
I think those issues are to be judged finely enough so that, when considered together with the delay in this matter (which would not of itself overcome the hurdle of exceptional circumstances), and the circumstances of detention due to COVID-19, I am satisfied that exceptional circumstances have been established.
The respondent submitted, with particular reference to the strength of the Crown case, that I should not be satisfied that exceptional circumstances have been made out. However, in reality, greater emphasis was placed on the submission that the applicant would pose an unacceptable risk if granted bail.
Much of that submission was based upon the lack of general support that the applicant has for her release on bail and her unfortunate history of failure to keep court orders, including a number of failures to answer bail and a breach of a community correction order for which she was sentenced in December 2019.
The applicant's criminal record goes back to 2010. She has developed over that period a history of relatively minor offending, mostly for dishonesty matters and mostly – one would assume – related to the somewhat typical behaviour of a drug-addicted person. She has been given many opportunities for rehabilitation and, as already mentioned, has engaged poorly with those opportunities.
She was in 2012 convicted of recklessly causing serious injury. I was provided material which indicated that that offending involved the use of a knife and involved the stabbing of someone in the back. However, I suspect it is long enough ago to bear no particular resonance in relation to the present offending.
The applicant has had in particular the support of Ms Sarah Sheppard from Women's Housing Ltd, who gave evidence before me on 13 January 2021 and has done her best to work out an ongoing program to give support to the applicant, first of all by temporary accommodation being provided for a month available from 18 January 2021. As I have already mentioned, alternative arrangements have since been made in relation to the applicant’s accommodation due to circumstances unforeseen at the time the application was heard.
In her evidence, Ms Sheppard made it clear that she would continue to give support directly to the applicant and also in organising appointments with SalvoConnect and with Brophy Family Support Services. Both services will be able to support the applicant in obtaining more permanent accommodation, as a matter of primary concern, and then in relation to any ongoing problems of drug addiction and mental health that might arise.
In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that the respondent has demonstrated that the applicant is an unacceptable risk of either endangering the community, offending whilst on bail or failing to answer bail.
The applicant has further motivation in relation to restoring her relationship with her mother and to re-engaging with her young daughter. The Department of Health and Human Services are prepared to be engaged in assisting in those matters and I received a letter from Lisa Pope, the practice leader from the Mallee North Division of the Department of Health and Human Services, to that effect.
Conclusion
Accordingly, having been satisfied by the applicant that exceptional circumstances exist which justify the grant of bail, and not being satisfied by the respondent of an unacceptable risk of under s 4E of the Act, I ordered that the applicant be admitted to bail on the following conditions:
(a) She attend the Supreme Court of Victoria on 2 February 2021 and then surrender herself, and must not depart without the leave of the Court and, if leave is given, return at the time specified by the Court and again surrender herself into custody.
(b) She reside at [an address approved by the Court], and not change that address without the leave of the Court.
(c) She remain at those premises between the hours of 9:00pm and 6:00am each day for the duration of bail.
(d) She present herself at the front door of the premises during those curfew hours if and when called upon by a member of Victoria Police to do so.
(e) She abstain from the consumption of any alcohol or any drug of dependence within the meaning of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1998 (Vic) without lawful authorisation under that Act.
(f) She provide a sample of her breath or oral fluid for testing if required to do so by any member of Victoria Police.
(g) She not contact, directly or indirectly, any witness for the prosecution, except the informant.
(h) She not leave the State of Victoria.
(i) She reappear before the Court for judicial monitoring to review her compliance with this order at 9:30am on 2 February 2021, and any further dates this Court appoints during the course of this order.
---
8
0