Re Boo
[2020] VSC 882
•29 December 2020
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2020 0343
| IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) |
| -and- |
| IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by WEI YU BOO |
---
JUDGE: | LASRY J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 22, 23 & 29 December 2020 |
DATE OF RULING: | 29 December 2020 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Re Boo |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2020] VSC 882 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW — Application for bail — Charges of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, possession of substances, materials and equipment for the purpose of manufacturing drug of dependence, and possession of child abuse material — Applicant alleged to be low-level member of drug syndicate — Malaysian citizen on bridging visa — Potential delay of three years — Exceptional circumstances established — Unacceptable risk can be mitigated by conditions — Bail granted with conditions — Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant | Ms F Gerry QC with Mr P Kounnas | Hutchinson Legal |
| For the Respondent | Mr G Hayward | Office of Public Prosecutions |
HIS HONOUR:
This is an application for bail by Wei Yu Boo (the ‘applicant’).
On 30 June 2020, the applicant was charged with possessing substances, materials and equipment for trafficking in a drug of dependence.[1] He was released on conditional bail by police the same day.
[1]Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic) s 71A (‘Drugs Act’).
Three months later, on 15 September 2020, the applicant was again arrested on further charges of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence (methylamphetamine), possessing child abuse material and contravening a conduct condition of bail.[2] It is the prosecution case that the applicant was involved in a large-scale drug-trafficking syndicate with 15 co-accused.
[2]See ibid s 71; Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 23; Bail Act 1977 (Vic) s 30A (‘Bail Act’).
The applicant was refused bail in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 20 November 2020 on the grounds that there was unacceptable risk that he would fail to surrender into custody in accordance with the conditions of bail. The matter is next listed for committal mention on 24 February 2021 in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court.
The alleged offending
In February 2020, the Victoria Police Clandestine Laboratory Squad commenced an investigation into the activities of a drug trafficking syndicate operating in Victoria and Tasmania.
The evidence obtained indicates that the syndicate had been operating a sophisticated, large-scale enterprise since, at least, early 2018, which involved the importation of more than five tonnes of pre-cursor chemicals, the operation of a number of clandestine laboratories used to manufacture methylamphetamine, and various money laundering activities. It is alleged that the syndicate also began operating poultry farms and rural labour hire businesses to legitimise their income.
A total of 23 search warrants were executed at addresses in Victoria and Tasmania between 10 February and 30 June 2020. Investigators located and seized over 25 kilograms of methylamphetamine; pre-cursor chemicals and solvents; scientific glassware and equipment; rotary evaporators (commonly used in the manufacture of methylamphetamine); hydroponic equipment (commonly used in the cultivation of cannabis); cannabis; large amounts of cash; mobile phones; luxury vehicles; and jewellery.
On 30 June, search warrants were executed at three properties linked to the applicant:
·216 Madang Road, Robinvale;
·12 Arafura Street, Robinvale; and
·72 Fitzgerald Road, Bannerton.
The Madang Road address is listed with the Australian Border Force as the applicant’s residence and as his partner’s registered address with VicRoads. A mobile phone in the applicant’s name is registered to the Arafura Street property and was previously listed as his partner’s residence with VicRoads. The applicant was residing at Fitzgerald Road at the time the search warrant was executed.
At those three addresses, police seized large amounts of hydrofluoric and hydrobromic acid (the latter being classified as a pre-cursor chemical);[3] various containers filled with unknown liquids; various pieces of scientific equipment and glassware commonly used in the manufacture of methylamphetamine; and three mobile phones.
[3]See Drugs Act s 4(1) (definition of ‘category 2 precursor chemical); Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances (Precursor Supply) Regulations 2010 (Vic) reg 6, sch 2.
A rotary evaporator was also located under a blue tarpaulin at the Fitzgerald Road address, which was identical to those found at clandestine laboratories linked to the syndicate. Notably, the rotary evaporator had not been present at this property when a previous search warrant had been executed there on 5 June 2020. However, on that same day, an intercepted conversation between alleged syndicate members Yining Tao and Eng Beng Koh captured the pair discussing ‘hiding the equipment at Ah Boo’s house’ under a tarpaulin.
As stated, the applicant was then charged with possessing articles for manufacturing drugs. During his record of interview, he denied knowledge of the items seized at the properties and provided investigators with a DNA sample.
He was released on police bail with conditions including that he reside at the Fitzgerald Road address and surrender his passport. The applicant’s bail was later varied in the Mildura Magistrates’ Court on 31 August 2020, requiring him to reside at 10 Arnott Street, Robinvale. The applicant did not surrender his passport as required in either case.
After his arrest, subsequent evidence was found implicating the applicant in further alleged offending.
At a clandestine laboratory located on Direction Drive in Tarneit, the applicant’s DNA was found on a bucket, and two phone numbers registered to him were saved under the name ‘Ah Boo’ on the phone of co-accused Soo Phing Chew, who was arrested at that address.
Additionally, analysis of one of the applicant’s mobile phones seized at the time of his arrest contained a four-minute video depicting category 4 child abuse material. That evidence has hardly been the subject of any submissions from either party and is not the subject of any explanation.
Following his second arrest, the applicant participated in another record of interview in which he stated that he knew co-accused Mr Chew from when the pair had previously worked together picking fruit, but denied ever having seen the bucket before or ever using it for work. He further denied any knowledge about the manufacturing of methylamphetamine.
The applicant also confirmed that the mobile phone that contained child abuse material belonged to him and that no other person had access to it. He gave ‘no comment’ when asked whether he had knowledge of any child abuse material on the phone. He was charged with trafficking a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, possessing child abuse material and contravening bail and was remanded in custody. Police also seized his passport.
The co-accused
Fifteen co-accused have been charged in relation to the syndicate’s alleged activities: Xiao Ning, Eng Beng Koh (‘EB Koh’), Yining Tao, Soo Phing Chew, Kag Lai Lim, Hang Kwok, Yew Kean Koo, Time Foo Cheah, Cyrene Liew, You Pou Chan, Eng Kok Koh, Zheng Kuay, Chexmang Wong, Swee Chin Lim and Hanyin Zhang. It is the prosecution case that Mr Tao, Ms Ning and Mr EB Koh are the syndicate leaders.
Ms Ning and Mr Wong have both been granted bail. Mr Wong’s wife and co-accused, Swee Chin Lim, was charged on summons on the basis that she was heavily pregnant at the time of her arrest. At the hearing of this application, the informant advised that Mr EB Koh and Mr Kuay were refused bail by the Magistrates’ Court on 21 December 2020. Six other co-accused remain on remand but no information was provided as to whether there are any outstanding applications for bail.
Mr Ning was charged with trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence (methylamphetamine) and negligently dealing with the proceeds of crime. She was granted bail by this Court on 17 September 2020 with strict conditions of bail.[4]
[4]Re Ning [2020] VSC 609.
In that matter, I found that exceptional circumstances had been established by the combination of her lack of criminal history, the fact she was the sole caregiver to her two infant children, and the anticipated delay of three years before the matter would go to trial.[5] I also had not been satisfied by the respondent that Ms Ning posed an unacceptable risk and, instead, found that any potential risk could be mitigated with appropriate conditions.[6]
[5]Ibid [57]-[9].
[6]Ibid [66].
Mr Wong was charged with trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence (methylamphetamine). He was granted bail in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 12 October 2020 with a $150,000 surety. Mr Wong’s ties to the jurisdiction, stable accommodation, family support, lack of relevant prior convictions, and likely delay appear to have been determinative in the decision to grant bail.
The applicant
The applicant is a 29-year-old Malaysian citizen who moved to Australia approximately five years ago. Since his arrival, he has worked in Victoria and New South Wales as a fruit picker, which is how he met his partner, Lin Hsiu-Jung, in 2017. Ms Hsiu-Jung is herself a Taiwanese citizen. Both are currently in Australia on bridging visas.
They now have a daughter who is 18 months old. Ms Hsiu-Jung ceased working after her birth, and the family was reliant on the applicant’s income until June 2020 when his work ended due to COVID-19.
Prior to his arrest, the applicant was residing with his partner and child at the Fitzgerald Road address with several other occupants.
The applicant has no criminal history and no other outstanding matters.
The applicable legislation
Trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence is a Schedule 1 offence within the meaning of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) (the ‘Act’).[7] Bail must therefore be refused unless the applicant can satisfy this Court that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail.[8] In determining whether exceptional circumstances have been established, the Court must take into account the relevant ‘surrounding circumstances’, including those prescribed in s 3AAA of the Act.[9]
[7]Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’) sch 1, item 6(a).
[8]Ibid ss 4AA(1), 4A(1A) and 4A(2).
[9]Ibid s 4A(3).
To be “exceptional”, 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’.[10] Exceptional circumstances may be demonstrated by reason of a single factor alone or in combination with others.[11]
[10]Re CT [2018] VSC 559 [64].
[11]Ibid [65].
If satisfied that exceptional circumstances have been established, the Court must apply the ‘unacceptable risk test’.[12] That is, bail must be refused if the respondent satisfies the Court that there is a risk of the kind set out in s 4E of the Act, and that such risk is an unacceptable risk.[13] In considering whether any relevant risk is unacceptable, the Court must again have regard to the ‘surrounding circumstances’ contained in s 3AAA of the Act and consider whether there are any conditions of bail that may be imposed to mitigate the risk so that it is not unacceptable.[14]
[12]Bail Act s 4D(1)(a).
[13]Ibid s 4E(2).
[14]Ibid s 4E(3).
Finally, when interpreting the Act, the Court is required to take into account the guiding principles set out in s 1B(1) of the Act.[15]
[15]Ibid s 1B(2).
The applicant’s contentions
The applicant relies upon the following matters in combination to demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of bail.
Strength of the prosecution case
The applicant submitted that the prosecution case is a substantially weak one. In relation to the drug charges, on affidavit material filed in support of his application, the applicant asserted that the evidence does not establish that he knew of or took part in the syndicate’s activities as alleged.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that while that the applicant was previously employed by co-accused Mr Kuay, only two pieces of evidence are said to link him to the syndicate. The first being the presence of his DNA on a bucket located at the Direction Drive lab, and the second being the recorded conversation between Mr Tao and Mr EB Koh.
The applicant submitted that the prosecution cannot exclude the innocent explanation for the presence of his blood on the bucket, including having handled the bucket while working in Mildura. The applicant also noted that the bucket was found in Melbourne, and submitted that there is no evidence of a connection between that property and the applicant. It was also put that the only inference that can be drawn by his mobile number on Mr Chew’s phone is that the two were known to one another, and there is no evidence the they were in contact regarding syndicate operations.
With respect to the recorded conversation between Mr Tao and Mr EB Koh, the applicant submitted that there is no evidence that he was aware of the arrangements the two co-accused were making, and it is therefore ‘reasonably probable’ that they were leaving materials at the applicant’s residence without his knowledge. It was put that the conversation has not been properly translated, and therefore no information regarding the language spoken by the co-accused or the type of property they intended to leave at the applicant’s residence.
The applicant further submitted that he does not own the Fitzgerald Road property and was only a temporary tenant along with several others. It was noted that that none of the other occupants were charged with trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence. The applicant submitted that there is no evidence that the applicant moved those items onto the property.
In the applicant’s submission, the prosecution cannot prove he knew about the existence of the items found under the tarpaulin nor their connection to the manufacture of drugs, particularly in the quantity alleged.
In what appears to be an argument in the alternative, counsel for the applicant, Ms Gerry, submitted that this Court may infer that, if the applicant were complicit in the syndicate’s operations, it was because the applicant was being exploited by members of the syndicate as a form of modern slavery. I pause, at this point, to indicate that I did not find this particular submission persuasive and will elaborate later in these reasons.
In relation to the child abuse materials, it was submitted in the affidavit materials that the prosecution case relies solely on the fact of his possession of the phone and that no evidence has been provided about the circumstances in which that material came to be on the phone. Ms Gerry, on the applicant’s behalf, submitted that such compromising material can be used to control victims of modern slavery.
Finally, in relation to the alleged breach of the bail, the applicant submitted that he did not understand that he was required to surrender his passport when granted police bail on 30 June 2020, as this was not explained to him by an interpreter.
Ties to the jurisdiction, accommodation and family hardship
Reportedly, the applicant is supported by his partner, Ms Hsiu-Jung. If granted bail, he proposes to reside with his partner and child in shared accommodation at 10 Arnott Street, Robinvale. In response to questions from me, it was put on behalf of the applicant that, notwithstanding the present charge of possessing child abuse material, there is no evidence that the applicant’s child is at risk, and this residence remains suitable.
It was further submitted that his family would experience significant hardship if he were to remain in custody as the applicant and his partner have been relying on their savings since June 2020. Additionally, due to their immigration status, the couple are not eligible for childcare assistance or subsidised healthcare. Counsel for the applicant contended that, because of their financial situation, his partner and child may be forced to relocate to Taiwan, and the family would be separated.
In support of this submission, a further affidavit from Ms Hsiu-Jung deposed to their financial circumstances and that, should their savings be depleted, she and her child would return to Taiwan. Although no submission was made as to what the Court should make of the bank statements exhibited to her affidavit, Ms Hsiu-Jung advised in her evidence on the application, that the statements did not represent her ‘cash flow’ and indicated she may have a further $500 to $1,000 available to her in cash.
Parity
As stated, Ms Ning and Mr Wong have each been granted bail. The applicant submitted that each accused should be treated alike, noting that the prosecution concede that the applicant is not a high-level member of the syndicate with same level of culpability as is the case with Ms Ning.
Further, on his behalf it was submitted that his personal circumstances are comparable to Ms Ning’s as there is a risk that his child will be removed from Australia if he remains in custody and her wellbeing would be adversely affected by her separation from her father. I regard Ms Ning’s situation as being significantly more dire than this applicant’s situation.
In response to the submission in the remand summary that his partner and child are presently receiving support from others, the applicant asserted that this support cannot be relied on in the long term. He further contended that, unlike Ms Ning, he does not have access to resources to flee the jurisdiction.
Delay
The applicant has been in custody since 15 September 2020. The matter is next listed for committal mention on 24 February 2021 and has been set down for a committal hearing alongside his co-accused on 12 April 2021. The applicant submits that the committal hearing date is likely to be adjourned due to the volume of evidence requiring further analysis and the number of co-accused. That does not seem to be in contention.
Mr Gerry, on behalf of the applicant, submitted that backlogs caused by the COVID-19 pandemic will likely mean there will be even further delay in getting to trial particularly in light of the significant number of co-accused, all of whom require interpreters.
It appears to be accepted that the minimum period of delay before this matter is reached as a trial in the County Court will be of the order of three years or greater.
Surety
Initially, the applicant’s partner was prepared to offer a $2,000 surety. At the further hearing of this matter on 23 December, I raised two issues regarding the suitability of the proposed surety. First, I indicated that the surety should more than the sum nominated by the applicant given the seriousness of the charge and that $5,000 would be more appropriate. Second, the funds put forward as a surety came from a joint account belonging to the applicant and Ms Hsiu-Jung and, given the assertion that his partner has been reliant on the applicant’s income for the last 18 months, the money in that account would have belonged to the applicant. In essence, the applicant would be funding his own surety which, in my view, is inappropriate as the Act appears to contemplate that any surety be independent from the applicant.[16]
[16]Bail Act s 9.
After a further adjournment, the applicant proposed another surety, being Teck Hock Chua. Mr Chua deposed to being a friend of the applicant and willing to offer a surety in the amount of $5,000. The respondent did not take issue with the suitability of Mr Chua.
Unacceptable risk
Noting the respondent’s contention that he poses an unacceptable risk of absconding on bail to Malaysia or New South Wales, the applicant submitted that remaining with his family is a powerful incentive for him to stay within the jurisdiction and that re a number of conditions of bail could be imposed to mitigate any such risk.
The respondent’s contentions
The respondent opposed the grant of bail on the basis that exceptional circumstances have not been established or, if they have, there is an unacceptable risk that the applicant would, if released on bail, either fail to surrender into custody in accordance with the conditions of bail or endanger the safety or welfare of any person.
Counsel for the respondent, Mr Hayward, did not accept that the case against the applicant is weak. He submitted that the applicant is linked to members of the syndicate and several of the addresses implicated in its activities. In this respect, the prosecution relies on the following:
·The applicant’s DNA was on a bucket at the Direction Drive clandestine laboratory where several kilograms of methylamphetamine were discovered.
·The bucket was allegedly located in a room containing scientific equipment, glassware and chemicals.
·The applicant’s denials in his record of interview preclude the innocent explanation for the presence of his blood through his work.
·The Direction Drive property was not under constant surveillance, as the applicant suggested, such that it is possible the applicant could have attended that address and left his DNA on the bucket.
·The applicant’s mobile phones were active in the Box Hill area on 4 June 2020 near Mr EB Koh’s residence.
·The applicant has been linked to Mr Chew who occupied the Direction Drive property.
·The mobile phones in the applicant’s possession were registered to the Arafura Street property where 1.7 tonnes of hydrofluoric acid and 3.5 tonnes of hydrobromic acid were located.
·A large number of scientific glassware items were located at the applicant’s most recent residence.
·Information from the applicant’s phone demonstrates his links to other syndicate members, including at least 10 calls between him and Eng Kok Koh between 8 August 2019 and 13 April 2020, three calls with Mr Kuay on 10 May and 18 June 2020, and six calls with Mr Wong between 6 and 8 June 2020.
·The recorded conversation between Mr Tao and Mr EB Koh on 5 June 2020 has been translated and demonstrates the applicant’s close association with a number of the co-accused.
·After other syndicate members discussed the applicant purchasing tarpaulins in another recorded conversation from 7 June 2020, the applicant later purchased three tarpaulins, one of which was discovered covering his car, and the other two were found covering alleged clandestine laboratory equipment at his residence.
·While others resided at the Fitzgerald Road property, only the applicant was personally named in conversations between the co-accused and was the only member of that household with links to the syndicate members.
The respondent contended that these factors leave open the inference that it is unlikely that the applicant was unaware of the items at his residence given his close relationship to the co-accused and that he would be aware of a real and significant chance that not less than 750 grams of methylamphetamine would be trafficked by the syndicate.
In relation to the applicant’s failure to surrender his passport, the respondent noted that he applied to vary his bail and submitted that this Court can assume that his conditions were again made known to him at this time, including the requirement to surrender his passport.
With respect to the child abuse material located on the applicant’s phone, the respondent advised in the affidavit materials that it has been classified as ‘category 4’ material, but did not make any further submissions.
Mr Hayward submitted that none of the issues raised by the applicant with respect to hardship are supported by evidence. He accepted that the applicant’s partner may return to Taiwan if she cannot afford to remain in Australia and submitted that, if they were to leave, it would serve to increase his flight risk.
As to parity, counsel for the respondent contended that the applicant’s circumstances are very different to Ms Ning as her children were in State care as both she and their father, Mr EB Koh, were in custody, and the children faced the prospect of being returned to China. Further, with respect to Mr Wong, the respondent notes that he advanced a substantial surety of $150,000 whereas the applicant has only proposed a surety of $2,000.
The respondent accepted that there will likely be some delay in this matter and very fairly accepted it will be substantial. I will shortly return to this issue.
Unacceptable risk
Counsel for the respondent submitted that the applicant poses an unacceptable risk of failing to surrender into custody, particularly given his failure to surrender his passport as required by his earlier conditions of bail and the prospect that his partner and child may leave the country (thereby severing all ties he has to the jurisdiction). It was put that the applicant was at risk of either fleeing the country or the state as and the considerable time he has spent working at farms in New South Wales.
The respondent noted further concerns that the applicant may have access to false identification documents via Ms Ning as investigators are alleged to now have evidence of her efforts to obtain materials to manufacture identification cards.
It was further submitted on the affidavit materials that, should the applicant engage in the manufacture of methylamphetamine while on bail, this conduct would endanger the safety and welfare of members of the community.
Finally, the respondent submitted that the conditions proposed by the applicant do not ameliorate these risks to an acceptable level.
Analysis
Despite the submissions of senior counsel for the applicant, I do not regard the case against the applicant as a weak one. I also will not venture into the various concepts of modern slavery and exploitation as raised by counsel without any significant evidence. I did not find counsel’s submissions on those topics at all helpful.
In my opinion, based on the informant’s knowledge of the syndicate’s hierarchy and the applicant’s alleged involvement in their activities, the overall assessment of his position and culpability is that of a relatively low-level member when compared to other co-accused like Ms Ning. Therefore, the submissions on parity hold more weight in this application.
Relevant to the submissions made by the applicant, this Court has found that parity is a relevant consideration in bail applications.[17] In Bchinnati v DPP (Vic) (No 2),[18] Croucher J stated the parity principle applies in case where ‘the circumstances of two accused are sufficiently similar that, if bail had been granted to one, it would be wrong to refuse bail to the other, or at least the grant of bail to one would be a relevant consideration on the application of the other’.[19] In that matter, Croucher J found that it would be ‘wholly unfair’ to deny bail to the applicant in circumstances where the co-accused was granted bail for what his Honour regarded as ‘related but comparatively far more serious allegations of the same type’.[20]
[17]DPP (Cth) v Abbott (1997) 97 A Crim R 19.
[18][2017] VSC 620.
[19]Ibid [70] (citations omitted).
[20]Ibid [73].
Like Ms Ning and Mr Wong, the applicant has a family who may be dependent on his ability to supply an income and who also are his ties the jurisdiction.
I must observe, however, that I find it uncomfortable that a man who has seriously criminal child abuse material on his mobile phone will be residing with an infant child. Despite having raised the issue with counsel, only counsel for the applicant made any point about the matter in submitting it should be of no consideration as the applicant’s child herself is not at risk. In the absence of any further submissions on that point, I can only urge the authorities to keep a careful watch on those circumstances.
The other matter that arises in this application as it did for Ms Ning and Mr Wong is the likely delay of three years. Because a delay of this nature now exists in so many cases, I suspect it is tempting to conclude that such delay is no longer exceptional or ‘out of the ordinary’. Such logic would be an error. As I have said on previous occasions, a period of pre-trial custody approaching three years coupled with the uncertainty of whether the delay may, in fact, be longer is inordinate and exceptional. To spend years in custody having indicated that the charges are to be contested is at odds with the legal presumption of innocence. Unlike Ms Ning, this could be a case where the pre-sentence detention could exceed the minimum term imposed on the applicant if he were found guilty of the offences he is charged with and sentenced for them.
I therefore conclude that exceptional circumstances have been established.
I further consider, as I did with Ms Ning, that the imposition of strict conditions will be sufficient to ameliorate any risk in the release of the applicant on bail. In addition to the removal of his passport, his relationship with Ms Hsiu-Jung and the child should provide the applicant with sufficient motivation to remain within the jurisdiction.
Conclusion
I therefore propose to release the applicant on his own undertaking with a surety of $5,000 and with the following conditions:
1)Prior to his release on bail, the applicant is to arrange for the surrender of any passport or any other travel documents in his possession to the informant or their nominee and is not to apply for any other such documents until further order;
2)The applicant is to reside at 10 Arnott Street, Robinvale in the State of Victoria (‘place of residence’) and must not change his place of residence without first giving seven days’ notice to the informant or their nominee;
3)The applicant is not to be absent from his place of residence between the hours of 10 pm and 5 am each day (the ‘curfew hours’);
4)The applicant is to present himself at the front door of his place of residence during the curfew hours upon the request of a member of Victoria Police;
5)The applicant is to report to the Officer in Charge, or their nominee, at the Robinvale Police Station every Monday, Wednesday and Friday between the hours of 9 am and 6 pm, but such reporting is suspended until the informant has notified the applicant that in-person reporting has resumed;
6)The applicant is not to contact or associate with, either directly or indirectly, any witness for the prosecution, other than the informant;
7)The applicant is not to contact or associate with, either directly or indirectly, any of his the co-accused;
8)The applicant is not to possess or use more than one mobile phone;
9)The applicant is to:
(a)provide the informant with:
(i)the phone number, IEMI number and any password or PIN of that phone within 24 hours of first having access to that phone; and
(ii)any change of password or PIN of the phone within 24 hours of that change.
(b)produce the phone for inspection upon the request of any member of Victoria Police; and
(c)provide any password or PIN for the phone upon request of any member of Victoria Police;
10)The applicant is not to leave the State of Victoria;
11)The applicant is not to attend at any international points of departure; and
12)The applicant is to appear at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court 24 February 2021 and thereafter as directed by that Court.
---
4
3
0