Re applications for bail by VN, Ak and CN
[2020] VSC 782
•19 November 2020
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2020 0298
S ECR 2020 0301
S ECR 2020 0302
| IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 | |
| and | |
| IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by VN, AK and CN | |
---
JUDGE: | COGHLAN JA |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 16 November 2020 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 19 November 2020 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Re applications for bail by VN, AK and CN |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2020] VSC 782 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Murder – Child applicants – Exceptional circumstances established – No unacceptable risk – Bail granted.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant VN | Mr T Marsh | Victoria Legal Aid |
| For the Applicant AK | Mr A Waters | Dowling McGregor Pty Ltd |
| For the Applicant CN | Melinda Walker Criminal Law Solicitors | |
| For the Respondent | Mr M Gibson SC | Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
HIS HONOUR:
On 16 June 2020 during a fight in the carpark of the Brimbank Shopping Centre, a 15 year old boy was stabbed once to the chest and died. On 22 October, eleven - nine children and two young adults were charged with his murder.
Initially between 17 June and 6 August, the co-accused were charged with the less serious charges of violent disorder and affray. All nine children were bailed on these charges either by police or by the Children’s Court. Both adult co-accused were remanded in custody.
On 22 October, Detective Senior Constable Gent charged all eleven with murder and unintentional killing pursuant to s 3A of the Crimes Act 1958 (‘the Crimes Act’) and they were all remanded in custody.
Between 22 and 26 October, bail applications were made in this court by the five youngest co-accused: JR, AP, DP, NT and IT. The hearing of these applications proceeded on 28 October and they were each granted bail on 4 November 2020.
I published reasons for the grant of bail on 4 November 2020.[1] And these reasons should be read in conjunction with those reasons.
[1]Re applications for bail by AP, IT, NT, DP and JR [2020] VSC 730.
Between 6 and 9 November AK, VN and CN made application for bail.
Procedural history
The procedural history of each applicant’s matter is as follows:
(a)AK is 16 years old and was charged with violent disorder and affray on 17 June and was bailed by police. He was remanded in custody when charged with murder on 22 October.
(b)VN is 16 years old and was charged with violent disorder and affray on 17 June and was granted bail at Melbourne Children’s Court. He was remanded in custody when charged with murder on 22 October.
(c)CN is 17 years old and was charged with violent disorder and affray on 10 July and was bailed by police. He was remanded in custody when charged with murder on 22 October.
The remaining child accused is ST who is 16 years old and was charged with violent disorder and affray on 17 June and was granted bail at Melbourne Children’s Court. He was remanded in custody when charged with murder on 22 October. He has not proceeded with any bail application to this Court
Of the two adult co-accused:
(a) Taataa Tafa is 20 years old and was charged with violent disorder and affray on 21 July. His application for bail was refused at Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 28 August. On 22 October he charged with murder and remanded in custody. He has not applied for bail.
(b) Soreysa Jibrael is 23 years old and was charged with violence disorder and affray on 6 August. On 22 October he charged with murder and remanded in custody. He has not applied for bail.
Applicable test
Exceptional circumstances
As the co-accused are charged with murder, a Sch 1 offence under Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’), the exceptional circumstances test applies (s 4AA). This requires the Court to refuse bail unless ‘satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail’ (s 4A(1A)).
The applicant bears the burden of satisfying the Court as to the existence of exceptional circumstances (s 4A). In considering whether exceptional circumstances exist, the Court is required to take into account the surrounding circumstances as outlined in the non-exhaustive list of matters in s 3AAA of the Act.
As the applicants are all children, the Court must also consider the factors in s 3B when deciding whether to grant bail.
Unacceptable risk test
Section 4E(1) requires the Court to refuse bail if satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk that the applicants would:
i. endanger the safety or welfare of any person; or
ii commit an offence while on bail; or
iii. interfere with a witness or otherwise obstruct the course of justice in any matter; or
iv. fail to surrender into custody in accordance with the conditions of bail.
v. The Court is required to consider whether there are any conditions of bail that may be imposed to mitigate the risk so that it is not be an unacceptable one: s 4E(3)(2).
Details of alleged offending
I set out those details in my earlier reasons at [12] to [34] and I adopt those paragraphs as part of these reasons.
Matters of General Application
I set out those matter and the matters common to each of the applicants in my earlier reasons at [35] to [47] and I adopt those paragraphs as part of these reasons. I note that [46] appearing under the heading ‘Performance on Bail’ does not apply to AK.
Respondent’s submissions
The respondent relied upon the seriousness of the alleged offending and the role played by each of the applicants. It was submitted that the case was a strong case.
It was incumbent upon each applicant to show the existence of exceptional circumstances which justify the grant of bail. Given my reasoning in relation to the other 5 bail applications was submitted it would be open to me to find the existence of exceptional circumstances. That was largely on the basis of the matters I had set out under the heading ‘Matters of General Application.’
The respondent concentrated on the question of unacceptable risk and set out the features relating to each applicant in support of unacceptable risk. The written submissions on behalf of the respondent became exhibit 1 (a) on the application.
To a large degree the matters relied upon related to the history of the applicants prior to these events and their history whilst on bail both before and after these events. I will deal with the matters raised as I deal with each applicant.
AK’s application — (D.O.B. 23 August 2004 ) 16 years and 2 months
His application for bail was filed on 9 November 2020. His bail application was supported by affidavit dated 6 November 2020. In support of the application the following material was provided to the Court:
• Youth Justice support:
o Pre-Sentence Report dated 23 September 2020;
o Addendum to Pre-Sentence Report dated 4 November 2020;
o Youth Justice Bail Assessment Report dated 13 November 2020;
• Caraniche Youth Forensic Service Certificate
o Are you talking to me – dated 13 November 2020.
The applicant will reside with his father and sisters. The respondent submitted that there were difficulties with that arrangement because the applicant did not get on with his father and that he and his sisters were desirous of setting up a separate household. It did appear before me that any such arrangement would be well into the future and the arrangement for the applicant to live with his father was manageable.
There are matters of concern relating to AK. He has reoffended twice whilst on bail. On 2 August 2020 whilst on bail he was involved ,with others, in theft from a motor vehicle and with committing an indictable offence whilst on bail. He was arrested for that offending and on 3 August 2020 he was released on bail. It is of significance that in relation to that bail he did have the support of the Youth Justice Bail programme. He had not had previously had such support. Those matters have now been finalised and the applicant is on a good behaviour bond.
On 3 August 2020 the matter was deferred until 28 September 2020. The applicant was placed under the supervision of Ms Trudi Moore, Advanced Case Manager who is the principal author of the three Youth Justice Reports referred to above. She was first tasked with preparing a Pre-Sentence Report which became two reports to accommodate the charge of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail. Ms Moore also had the supervision of the applicant whilst on bail for those charges but not the charges of 17 June 2020 for which the applicant remains on bail.
Further on 30 August in company of other youths the applicant was arrested in Deer Park. He was in breach of the COVID curfew. He was carrying a 30cm kitchen knife. He was given a penalty notice for those offences. Although technically he may not have been in breach of either of his bails and has not committed an offence under the Act it is nonetheless of great concern that almost four weeks after having been released on his second bail he is out at night with other youths armed with a knife. It is part of the prosecution case that during the attack on the deceased the applicant was armed with a knife. It does not seem that at least at that time the applicant had much appreciation of the danger of carrying knives notwithstanding what had happened in the earlier incident.
The respondent also placed reliance upon the alleged involvement in an incident on 20 February 2020 when a group of youths, said to include the applicant, got into to a fight with a rival group. A member of that group received a knife wound which required 5 stitches. The brief was not approved and it is not possible to give that matter much if any weight for present purposes. The respondent also relied upon video tape material in particular, reliance was placed upon a recording made by CN on 10 June 2020 in which the applicant can be seen threatening a young boy with a knife and later punching him. That matter is still under investigation. It is difficult to assess the extent to which the balance of the conduct shown is criminal. It does however indicate ‘gang ‘ membership.
The respondent has expressed particular concern about an incident which occurred at Parkville Youth Justice Precinct (‘Parkville’) where the three applicants and co accused ST are being held on remand. Another group of young men are being held in same unit at Parkville. Those young men are said to be members of the gang known as Next Gen Shooters (‘NGS’). On 7 November 2020 there was some sort of fight between the two groups. It appears that the NGS group armed themselves with broken broom handles and a basketball was thrown at VN. Staff intervened and not much came of the incident. It emerged that on 6 November the applicant made a call to his girlfriend. He engaged VN, CN and ST in that call. The call was diverted to or shared with some BH gang members. In that call the applicant said he thought there was going to be fight the next day with members of NGS who were in the same unit and in response to what was said to him said words to the effect of ‘yeah hunt them’. The applicant had further calls to his girlfriend on 8 November and later but those calls do not seem to take the matter further. I have received material from which it appears that on 17 November 2020 CN, AK and ST were the subject of further assaults at the hands of NGS members. CN suffered a cut lip. It is unfortunate that the applicants are being held together but I assume that the authorities have no choice. I regard what has occurred as largely a result of the circumstances. What is of concern is the linking up with other BH members and the encouragement to retribution. It is not known whether any retribution or attempted retribution at the hands of BH has taken place.
The respondent also submitted material showing that the applicant’s school attendance in the last part of 2019 and up until about August 2020 had been unsatisfactory.
As set out above I received three reports from Ms Moore who gave evidence before me. I accept that she has a good rapport with the applicant and good understanding of what supports the applicant needs. She did have the supervision of the applicant at the time of the 30 August incident and the applicant told her at least something of it but it is not clear how much he told her about it. Since it was dealt by way of penalty notice she might not have regarded the matter as serious.
Ms Moore has engaged the applicant in discussions about his gang involvement and the applicant has expressed some desire to break those associations but has not been able to get free of those associations. As set out above, he is being detained in the same unit at Parkville as three of his co accused. Ms Moore is aware of the difficulties at Parkville. It is anticipated that in future the applicant can be engaged in activities which will assist him in disengaging with undesirable peers but it does continue to be a risk.
What emerges from Ms Moore’s evidence and her reports is that if the applicant is released on bail she will construct a careful programme for him which will in the form of Intensive Bail involve:
1 Education at Copperfield Secondary College where his remote learning can continue;
2 Referral to Youth Justice Community Service Support After Hours Program with twice weekly contact with Mr Michael Smith Bamigbola; and
3. Referral to Caraniche Youth Forensic Service, where the applicant has completed one course.
There will be continued contact and support from Ms Moore.
The applicant is undoubtedly a risk of re-offending. He has been in custody since 22 October 2020 and apart from the matters described above he is said to have behaved well. In the incident set out at [26] above, he did misuse his phone and lost his phone privileges as a result.
It was submitted on his behalf that a combination of matters amount to exceptional circumstances in particular his youth, the availability of the Youth Justice Bail support programme, suitable accommodation, the COVID-19 pandemic’s effect on conditions in custody and delay.
I have had regard to the relevant surrounding circumstances as defined by s 3AAA of the Act and the matters set out under the heading ‘Matters of General Application’.
I am satisfied that as a result of the combination of those features exceptional circumstances have been made out. As already noted, the respondent accepted it was open to me to do so.
The respondent placed particular reliance upon the applicant’s history prior to his involvement in the present matter as establishing that he is an unacceptable risk of committing further offences on bail or endangering the safety and welfare of member of the public. In giving consideration to those matters, I am also obliged to have regard to the surrounding circumstances as defined by s 3AAA of the Act and the matters set out under the heading ‘Matters of General Application’. I am not satisfied that the applicant is an unacceptable risk.
I was impressed with Ms Moore and accept that with her support that a risk which might otherwise be unacceptable can be reduced to the level where it is no longer unacceptable. The applicant will be admitted to bail.
VN’s application — (D.O.B. 16 May 2004) 16 years and 6 months
His application for bail was filed on 6 November 2020. His application was supported by affidavit dated 6 November 2020. In respect of his application the following was provided to the Court:
·Youth Justice Bail Service Report dated 12 November 2020;
·St Joseph’s Flexible Learning Centre — letter dated 27 October 2020.
The applicant will live at home with his mother, father and 5 siblings.
The respondent has concerns based on the ability of his parents to control the applicant. That material particularly relates to the time prior to these events. In particular a knife was found in the applicant’s bedroom at the time of his arrest on 24 June for an unrelated matter. The respondent is also concerned by the fact that the applicant’s brother has been charged with offences. I would not take that as matter effecting the possibility of the applicant being granted bail. It should be noted that Hayden Bergman in his Youth Justice Bail Service Report dated 12 November 2020 reported:
VN is supported by a strong family group who have confirmed their desire to have VN home, should he be granted bail. VN is supported by his parents, Ms OA and Mr EN. VN also has five siblings between the ages of 18 and 3 years old who all live at home. VN was born in New Zealand and moved to Australia with his family in 2015. VN is supported by his Aunty, Ms AV, who has been nominated as the family support, given VN’s family speak limited English. Ms AV reported that VN was a ‘good boy’ growing up, always respecting his family. She stated that VN tended to push boundaries like any teenager; however, always listened to his father’s ‘ authority'. Whilst VN did push boundaries, the family felt they could manage this. Ms AV advised that the family feel that VN’s peer associations has been a primary influencing factor to why he has found himself in the situation he has and through disengaging with these peers, he can remove himself from negative situations. Youth Justice provided an update around VN’s current circumstances and the purpose of Youth Justice involvement should the court grant bail. Ms AV confirmed understanding on behalf of the family and their continued to desire for VN to return home.[2]
[2]Youth Justice Bail Service Report dated 12 November 2020, 2.
The applicant has no prior convictions. He has had some contact with the criminal justice system. He was cautioned for theft of a $20 bluetooth speaker on 2 February 2017 when he was 13. In July 2017 he and others were allegedly involved in a burglary at vacant house where a number of windows were broken. The applicant was 13. The applicant was arrested for those matters on 24 June 2020. On 13 August 2020 those matters were struck out on the basis of doli incapax. A further matter occurred on 12 December 2019 when the applicant, AP, DP, and IT assaulted a young man at Woodgrove Shopping Centre. It is alleged that DP was the ring leader and it appears that the applicant had the least involvement. The applicant was arrested but the matter did not proceed due to lack of evidence. I do not regard any of those matters as relevant to the present application except to show that the applicant has had contact with the criminal justice system.
There is one other matter which occurred on 5 January 2020 when the applicant exposed his buttocks to the police. The incident occurred during the annual St Albans Moon Festival. The applicant was with a group of other young men including DP. The summons for behaving in an indecent manner in a public place is now returnable on 18 February 2021.
One matter of concern is that on 10 October 2020 the applicant, AP, DP and IT were observed with others drinking in a reserve in St Albans. That conduct in clear breach of the applicant’s conditions of bail that he not associate with co-accused or contact witnesses. The police took down names but the applicant provided false details. No infringement notices were served.
The respondent expressed further concerns about the applicant because when police made a proactive visit to the applicant’s home he told them to ‘fuck off’. His parents were not at home and later that group of police were able to make contact with the family. It should be noted on 24 June 2020 the applicant had been arrested over the incident which had occurred in July 2017.
The applicant’s involvement in the incident at Parkville referred to at [26] above was of concern because it reinforced ‘gang’ loyalty and involvement. Although those matters are of concern, I have taken into account the somewhat unusual way those matters came about.
It had further been submitted by the respondent that the applicant’s school attendance had been very unsatisfactory and that was true at the time of the offending. The applicant has been engaged with Nano Nagle (St Joseph’s Flexible Learning Centre) since 27 August 2020 . His educational situation has improved although there have been additional limitations brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic.
He is in a special stream and has engaged positively. He has the support of a teacher and youth worker and has been described as having a ‘genuine rapport’[3] with them. He has actively participated in the production of a Personal Learning Plan (‘PLP’).
[3]St Joseph’s Flexible Learning Centre letter dated 27 October 2020.
The applicant now has the support Youth Justice Bail Support who will provide support as follows
1.Youth Justice Support direct support;
2.Continued support for engagement with St Joseph’s Flexible Learning Centre;
3Youth Justice Community Support Service After Hours Program with Mr Yahye Fitaax;
4Charis Mentoring; and
5.Caraniche Psychosocial Programs.
A very intensive plan has been produced for the applicant’s engagement and supervision on bail.
I take the breach of bail condition seriously but in comparison with other cases which come before this Court, the performance of the applicant on bail has been quite good. I have had regard to his possession of a knife shortly after being released on bail as a matter of concern.
The applicant relies upon his age, accommodation with his mother (I do share the respondent’s concerns about the accommodation), Youth Justice support, improved attendance at school, Charis Culture mentoring and involvement with Caraniche Youth Forensic Service.
I have had regard to the relevant surrounding circumstances as defined by s 3AAA of the Act and the matters set out under the heading ‘Matters of General Application’.
I am satisfied that because of the combination of matters relied upon that exceptional circumstances have been made out.
In any event, as I have already set out, the respondent accepted that it would be open for me to find the existence of exceptional circumstances. The respondent continued to press the submission that the applicant was an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety and welfare of persons and committing further offences because of the matters I have set above.
I accept that there are some risk of reoffending and in that sense endangering the welfare and safety of members of the community. I am satisfied that the risk can be reduced to a not unacceptable level by the imposition of appropriate conditions.
CN’s application — (D.O.B. 24 March 2003) 17 years and 7 months
His application for bail was filed on 9 November 2020. His application was supported by affidavit dated 9 November 2020. The following material was filed on his behalf:
·Youth Justice Support:
o Youth Justice Bail Service Report dated 12 November 2020.
He will live with his mother brother and sister. He has strong family support. He has no charges outstanding.
The respondent has raised his involvement in an incident on 10 June 2029 when he recorded on video AK threatening a boy with a large knife. It is alleged that the applicant laughed as the boy was being threatened. No charges have been laid with respect to that matter. The applicant was also involved in the incident at Parkville referred to above at [26].
The respondent accepts that it would open to me to find exceptional circumstances but submits that the two matters set out above together with the applicant’s involvement in this offending and the lead up to it demonstrate that the applicant would if released on bail be an unacceptable risk to the safety and welfare of members of the public.
The applicant has been compliant with his bail conditions and apart from what happened recently at Parkville it is not alleged that he has been in trouble since being admitted to bail.
The applicant has been actively involved in a Pre-Apprenticeship course in carpentry at Victoria University. He will be able to return to the course if granted bail.
The applicant has the support of Youth Justice as follows
1. Continuing support of Youth Justice;
2. Support at Victoria University;
3. Engagement with Jesuit Social Services;
4. Youth Justice Community Support services After Hours program with Mr Phillip Rosie; and
5. Caraniche Psychosocial Programs.
A detailed Intensive Bail Support Program has been prepared for the applicant.
In addition to the applicant’s youth and delay, the general effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on those in custody, reliance is placed on the supports set out above and his overall satisfactory performance while on bail.
I have had regard to the surrounding circumstances pursuant to s 3AAA of the Act and the matters set out under the heading ‘Matters of General Application’.
I am satisfied that exceptional circumstances have been made out by virtue of the totality of the matters relied upon. The respondent pressed that the applicant was an unacceptable risk for the reasons set out above.
I am also satisfied that any risk which exists can be reduced to a not unacceptable level by the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Conclusions
For the reasons stated above, I admitted all three applicants to bail and after hearing from the parties as to proposed conditions I released the applicants on the following special conditions.
In relation to VN:(a)
1. He attend the Melbourne Children’s Court on 1 December 2020 and then surrender himself, 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 himself into custody.
2. He reside at an address known to the Court and the police in Victoria, and not change that address without the leave of the Court.
3. He remain at those premises between the hours of 9:00pm and 7:00am each day for the duration of bail, unless in the company of a parent/guardian or adult family member or nominee of Youth Justice.
4. He present himself 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.
5. He 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.
6. He provide a sample of his breath or oral fluid for testing if required to do so by any member of Victoria Police.
7. He not contact, directly or indirectly, the co-accused, being ST, IT, DP, NT, CN, JR, AP, AK, Taataa TAFA and Soreysa JIBRAEL for the duration of the bail period.
8. He engage in any school based programs as arranged and directed by Youth Justice.
9. He not be present in any group of greater than 5, except in the presence of a parent/guardian or authorised representative of Youth Justice, except when engaged in any program arranged or endorsed by Youth Justice or in any organised sporting program.
10. He not be within 200m of the Brimbank Shopping Plaza or Deer Park Library.
11. He obey all lawful directions of Youth Justice.
12. He attend and comply with all requirements of the Youth Justice Intensive Bail program.
13. He not access or use any form of social media.
14. He not contact, directly or indirectly, any witness for the prosecution, except the informant.
15. He not leave the State of Victoria.
16. He reappear before the Court for judicial monitoring to review his compliance with this order at 10:00am on 4 February 2021, and any further dates this Court appoints during the course of this order.
In relation to AK:(b)
1. He attend the Melbourne Children’s Court on 1 December 2020 and then surrender himself, 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 himself into custody.
2. He reside at an address known to the Court and the police in Victoria, and not change that address without the leave of the Court.
3. He remain at those premises between the hours of 9:00pm and 7:00am each day for the duration of bail, unless in the company of a parent/guardian or adult family member or nominee of Youth Justice.
4. He present himself 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.
5. He 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.
6. He provide a sample of his breath or oral fluid for testing if required to do so by any member of Victoria Police.
7. He not contact, directly or indirectly, the co-accused, being ST, IT, DP, NT, VN, JR, AP, CN, Taataa TAFA and Soreysa JIBRAEL for the duration of the bail period.
8. He engage in any school based programs as arranged and directed by Youth Justice.
9. He not be present in any group of greater than 5, except in the presence of a parent/guardian or authorised representative of Youth Justice, except when engaged in any program arranged or endorsed by Youth Justice or in any organised sporting program.
10. He not be within 200m of the Brimbank Shopping Plaza or Deer Park Library.
11. He obey all lawful directions of Youth Justice.
12. He attend and comply with all requirements of the Youth Justice Intensive Bail program.
13. He not access or use any form of social media.
14. He not contact, directly or indirectly, any witness for the prosecution, except the informant.
15. He not leave the State of Victoria.
16. He reappear before the Court for judicial monitoring to review his compliance with this order at 10:00am on 4 February 2021, and any further dates this Court appoints during the course of this order.
In relation to CN:(c)
1. He attend the Melbourne Children’s Court on 1 December 2020 and then surrender himself, 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 himself into custody.
2. He reside at an address known to the Court and the police in Victoria, and not change that address without the leave of the Court.
3. He remain at those premises between the hours of 9:00pm and 7:30am each day for the duration of bail, unless in the company of a parent/guardian or adult family member or nominee of Youth Justice.
4. He present himself 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.
5. He 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.
6. He provide a sample of his breath or oral fluid for testing if required to do so by any member of Victoria Police.
7. He not contact, directly or indirectly, the co-accused, being ST, IT, DP, NT, VN, JR, AP, AK, Taataa TAFA and Soreysa JIBRAEL for the duration of the bail period.
8. He engage in any school based programs as arranged and directed by Youth Justice.
9. He not be present in any group of greater than 5, except in the presence of a parent/guardian or authorised representative of Youth Justice, except when engaged in any program arranged or endorsed by Youth Justice or in any organised sporting program.
10. He not be within 200m of the Brimbank Shopping Plaza or Deer Park Library.
11. He obey all lawful directions of Youth Justice.
12. He attend and comply with all requirements of the Youth Justice Intensive Bail program.
13. He not access or use any form of social media.
14. He not contact, directly or indirectly, any witness for the prosecution, except the informant.
15. He not leave the State of Victoria.
16. He reappear before the Court for judicial monitoring to review his compliance with this order at 10:00am on 4 February 2021, and any further dates this Court appoints during the course of this order.
---
1
0