Re Busari
[2020] VSC 572
•7 September 2020
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2020 0205
| IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 |
| and |
| IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by DOMINIC BUSARI |
---
JUDGE: | TINNEY J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 7 September 2020 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 7 September 2020 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Re Busari |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2020] VSC 572 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Family violence offending – 44 year old applicant with no prior convictions – Prima facie entitlement to bail – Risk can be ameliorated by the imposition of stringent conditions so as not to be unacceptable – Bail granted – Bail Act 1977 ss 1B, 4, 4E, 5AAA.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant | Mr M Page | Leanne Warren & Associates |
| For the Respondent | Mr S Eley | Victoria Police Legal Practice Group |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
The applicant applies for bail in respect of charges he faces of reckless conduct endangering life, reckless conduct endangering serious injury, aggravated assault of a female, common law assault, and unlawful assault.
This is one of the relatively rare instances of an application for bail to this Court where the applicant is prima facie entitled to a grant of bail, pursuant to s 4 of the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’).
Procedural history
The applicant was charged with these offences on 31 July 2020. He made an application for bail in the Dandenong Magistrates’ Court on 18 and 19 August 2020. Bail was refused on the basis that the applicant posed an unacceptable risk of committing on offence while on bail, endangering the safety and welfare of any person, and interfering with a witness or otherwise obstructing the course of justice.
The charges are in the summary stream and the next listing date is 9 September 2020 at Dandenong Magistrates’ Court.
Alleged offending
The complainant in this matter is the applicant’s wife of 20 years, Joanne Busari. The couple have a seven-year-old daughter together, Dominique Busari (‘DB’). It is alleged that the conduct that is the subject of the present charges occurred against a background of long-term, largely unreported family violence on the part of the applicant against the complainant.
Following an incident in March 2018 in which the applicant, whilst affected by alcohol and in possession of a jerry can of fuel, is alleged to have threatened to burn down the family home, a no-contact family violence intervention order (‘FVIO’) was issued and subsequently varied to a safe-contact order that permitted the applicant to attend the home when not affected by drugs or alcohol. It is alleged that the applicant did not abide by the terms of the order as he repeatedly attended the home while alcohol-affected, although these instances were not reported by the complainant. That order expired on 1 January 2020.
On the evening of 27 June 2020, the applicant consumed a significant amount of alcohol while at the family home in Lyndhurst. He became aggressive and verbally abusive towards the complainant. In fear, the complainant took DB to stay with family members. She returned to the home on 14 July 2020, as a result of the re-introduction of Stage 3 COVID-19 restrictions in Victoria.
At 9.00 pm on 30 July 2020, the complainant was lying down in bed when it is alleged that the applicant, who had been drinking alcohol for a number of hours, entered their bedroom and began verbally abusing her. He demanded that she send him a screenshot of a phone call she had made earlier that day and yelled at her for various reasons, including blaming her for his problems with alcohol and for ‘only giving him one child’.
At 10.38 pm, DB awoke due to the sounds of shouting. While the complainant was attempting to settle her, the applicant demanded that she return to their bedroom and pack her things to leave the house. Due to the late hour and it being cold outside, the complainant pleaded with the applicant to let her stay and indicated that she would leave in the morning.
The complainant moved into the kitchen and was pursued by the applicant. He allegedly berated her for having called police on him in the past and his aggression continued to escalate such that the complainant decided to take DB out of the house. She commenced packing but was advised by the applicant that he would not allow her to leave with DB.
Around this same time, DB emerged from her bedroom and appeared visibly frightened and shaking. While the complainant was attempting to comfort her, it is alleged that the applicant pulled the complainant’s jumper with one hand and grabbed and pulled her hair with the other hand. The complainant attempted to push the applicant away but his force was such that some of her hair detached and she fell to the ground. It is alleged that the applicant climbed on top of the complainant, as he screamed and continued to pull at her hair resulting in further detachment. As this was occurring, DB pleaded with the applicant to desist, but this did not deter him.
It is alleged that he then grabbed the complainant by the throat with his left hand, squeezing and pressing down so that the complainant had difficulty breathing. She attempted to push the applicant off of her and called out the name of their neighbour ‘Manny’, to DB in an attempt to have DB seek help.
DB then ran to the home of Emmanuel Vettoor (‘Vettoor’) and told him that he needed to come with her, ‘because my dad is trying to kill my mum’. Vettoor woke his wife, Manykutty Joy (‘Manny’), who contacted emergency services.
After a prolonged period of strangulation, the complainant managed to free herself and ran towards the front door. However, the applicant blocked the door and she pleaded with him to let her find DB. The applicant then opened the front door and called out for DB, at which time the complainant took the opportunity to escape the house via the back door. Once outside, the complainant was identified by Vettoor who took her to his house pending police arrival.
At 12.30 am on 31 July 2020, the applicant was arrested at the family home. He provided a no comment record of interview and was remanded into custody.
At 2.20 am, the complainant was transported to Dandenong Hospital for a medical assessment. She had suffered bruising, abrasions and scratches to her throat, neck and face. The complainant had a headache and soreness to her upper body and head, as well as a cough and difficulty swallowing.
Personal background
The applicant is a 44 year-old man with no previous criminal history. At the time of the alleged offending, he was working casually in a warehouse at Moorabbin Airport. He lost that employment as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. He has been married to the complainant for approximately 20 years. The marital relationship began to deteriorate in 2015 when the applicant lost his job at Telstra and began to drink heavily on a weekly basis.
The law
Section 1B of the Act sets out the guiding principles of the legislation, which include maximising community safety, and taking account of the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty.
Section 4, under the heading Entitlement to bail, provides:
A person accused of an offence, and being held in custody in relation to that offence, is entitled to be granted bail unless the bail decision maker is required to refuse bail by this Act.
Section 4E of the Act provides:
(1)A bail decision maker must refuse bail for a person accused of any offence if the bail decision maker is satisfied that –
(a) there is a risk that the accused would, if released on bail –
(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; and
(b) the risk is an unacceptable risk.
(2) The prosecutor bears the burden of satisfying the bail decision maker –
(a)as to the existence of a risk of a kind mentioned in subsection (1)(a); and
(b) that the risk is an unacceptable risk.
(3)In considering whether a risk mentioned in subsection (1)(a) is an unacceptable risk, the bail decision maker must –
(a) take into account the surrounding circumstances; and
(b)consider whether there are any conditions of bail that may be imposed to mitigate the risk so that it is not an unacceptable risk.
The term surrounding circumstances is defined in s 3 by reference to s 3AAA, which sets out a non-exhaustive list of matters required to be considered when a bail decision maker is required to take into account the surrounding circumstances.
Section 5AAA(1) of the Act requires the court considering the released of an accused on bail to impose any condition that, in its opinion, will reduce the likelihood of the applicant doing any of the things set out is s 4E(1)(a) of the Act. Subsection (2) provides:
If a bail decision maker imposes one or more conditions, each condition and the number of conditions –
a)must be no more onerous than is required to reduce the likelihood that the accused may do a thing mentioned in subsection (1)(a) to (d); and
b)must be reasonable, having regard to the nature of the alleged offence and the circumstances of the accused; and
c)subject to subsection (3), must be consistent with each condition of each family violence intervention order, family violence safety notice or recognised DVO to which the accused is subject.
The evidence
Along with the affidavit material filed on both sides, evidence was led by the applicant from his sister Josephine Busari. Ms Busari is employed as a manager with a government regulatory agency. She is currently working full-time from home. Ms Busari informed the Court that she lives alone in a two bedroom apartment in Moonee Ponds, some 56 kilometres away from where the complainant lives in Lyndhurst. She would be willing to have the applicant live there with her should he be released on bail. He lived with her in her then apartment in St Kilda Road for a time after the making of the intervention order in 2018, before she found him a place to live on his own. Ms Busari gave evidence about her observations of his drinking habits. She considered that he was not a daily drinker, and drank to ‘numb the pain’[1] of his failing relationship with the complainant. Ms Busari stated that she had told the applicant he should stop drinking, and that he had told her that he wants to do so. She undertook to contact the respondent and report any breach of bail by the applicant, which she considered to be her responsibility for the protection of both her brother and her sister-in-law. Ms Busari informed the Court that she would provide such assistance as she could to the applicant in keeping appointments and the like.
[1]Transcript 13.
The applicant’s submissions
Mr Page, for the applicant, relied upon a combination of matters as set out in the affidavits in support and his oral submissions in support of the grant of bail:
a) The availability of stable accommodation well away from the complainants residence. It is proposed that the applicant reside with his sister, Josephine Busari, at her apartment in Moonee Ponds. As indicated above, Ms Busari currently works from home on a full-time basis, and she would be able to keep a watchful eye on the applicant, and assist him in attending counselling appointments and the like. The fact of a static residence, especially with the current COVID-19 rules, would enable the applicant to be located by police, if required for any reason. This residence is on the other side of the city from where the complainant currently resides (Lyndhurst), and Mr Page indicated that the applicant would agree to abide by a condition imposing a geographical exclusion from the Cities of Casey and Greater Dandenong. Mr Page sought an exception to such a condition to enable the applicant to have supervised visits with his daughter, as approved by the Department of Health and Human Services (‘DHHS’). Mr Page commended Ms Busari to the Court as being an ‘honest and impressive witness’.[2]
[2]Transcript 22.
b) Family support. The applicant is supported by his family, including his parents who reside in Lynbrook.
c) The complainant’s support. Mr Page relied on the ongoing support of the complainant for a grant of bail as being a very important matter. In her statement, the complainant said of the applicant, ‘Dominic needs help with his mental health and his drinking. He is a good person when he isn’t drinking…I just want to see him get help. I don’t want him to have a criminal record’. At the earlier bail hearing in the Magistrates’ Court, the complainant expressed support for the applicant being granted bail so that he could engage with treatment in the community. She remains supportive, and Mr Page submitted this was an important consideration.
d) Drug and alcohol support. It was proposed on behalf of the applicant that there be a condition that he abstain from the use of alcohol. The material in the application indicated the problematic relationship of the applicant with alcohol, and if that could be controlled, which Mr Page submitted was a realistic prospect, that would reduce the risk of the applicant breaching other conditions of bail. In addition, it was proposed that there be a bail condition requiring the applicant to contact North and West Metro Alcohol and Other Drug Service (‘Northwest Metro’) for assessment and referral within 48 hours of his release on bail (if bail is granted), and to comply with all lawful directions of Northwest Metro.
e) Mental health care plan. It was proposed that the applicant obtain a mental health care plan from a general practitioner. To this end, an appointment has apparently been arranged with Dr Surrender Paul Moyo of Our Medical Home Clinic in Cranbourne West at 1.00 pm on 8 September 2020.
f) Absence of criminal history. The applicant has no criminal history whatsoever and no history of breaching bail or court orders. He was not subject to bail or any restriction on his movements at the time of the alleged offending. Insofar as there were allegedly occasions of the applicant failing to abide by the terms of the FVIO in place until January 2020, there is a qualitative difference between a grant of bail from this Court and an FVIO not containing a non-contact component. While the applicant is currently the respondent to an interim FVIO as a result of the alleged offending, there are no allegations of him breaching that order.
g) First time in custody. The applicant’s current period on remand represents his first time in custody. It was submitted that this will have a salutary effect on the applicant and act as a deterrent against future offending.
h) Delay. Due to the constraints currently faced by the Magistrates’ Court, it was submitted by Mr Page that there is likely to be significant delay in the matter reaching a contested hearing. This delay might extend to a period of twelve months or so.
i) Nature and seriousness of alleged offending. Mr Page submitted that these were not serious examples of the charges in question.
j) Strength of the prosecution case. On this score, Mr Page did not seek to describe the case as weak.
k) Likely sentence upon conviction. Mr Page submitted that a custodial sentence would not be likely in this case, and if one did eventuate, it would not be a lengthy one.
l) COVID-19 related factors It was submitted that the applicant’s time in custody has been made more onerous due to COVID-19. First, the applicant has Type-2 Diabetes and is concerned about the risk of infection with COVID-19 in custody and the impact it would have on his health. He has no access to cleaning products to wipe shared surfaces and has difficulty maintaining social distancing when interacting with staff and fellow prisoners. Secondly, he has no access to personal visits and, although he is now able to access phone or video calls, those methods of outside contact were not available throughout his 14-day quarantine period.
Mr Page submitted that when the matters set out in s 3AAA are considered, ‘the vast majority of them fall in favour of the applicant in this case’.[3] He emphasised the good character of the applicant, the fact that no alleged previous breach of an FVIO had resulted in any criminal charges, and the fact that there had been no breaches of the interim order now in place. The imposition of stringent conditions of bail could ensure that any risk posed by the applicant could be reduced such that it would not be unacceptable.
[3]Transcript 5.
The respondent’s submissions
Mr Eley, for the respondent, relied upon the affidavit material, including the report of the respondent, his written submissions, and his oral submissions before me.
At the outset of the written submissions, Mr Eley set out s 1B of the Act, which I set out earlier in this judgment.
Later in the written submissions, Mr Eley described the offending as being extremely serious, and asserted that but for the actions of the complainant and good forture, the result could have been catastrophic. Before me, he initially submitted that the offending, involving as it did the applicant placing his hands around the neck of the complainant, causing her to struggle for breath, in circumstances of a domestic relationship, aggravated by the presence of their 7 year old daughter, was ‘a most serious example of that particular offence’.[4] A little later, when reminded of the fact that the matters had been launched and left in the summary stream by the prosecution, described the offending as ‘a most serious example of domestic abuse in which on the facts the complainant’s life has been placed at risk by choking’.[5]
[4]Transcript 25.
[5]Ibid 28.
Mr Eley submitted that the seriousness of the offending was such that even on a plea of guilty, it was inevitable that the applicant would receive a term of imprisonment, and such term which would be not less that any time he had spent in custody on remand.
The case, submitted Mr Eley, is a strong one.
In respect of the interim FVIO now in place, it offered limited amelioration of the risk posed by the applicant.
It was submitted that the applicant had a long-term drinking problem, and that no measures were in place to treat this issue. He may be willing to give all sorts of promises to the Court, but his ability to fulfil any of those was questionable. Since he would not be able to work, the applicant, if released on bail, would be stuck at home, having to rely on his own efforts to deal with a drinking problem which had been in play for at least five years. It was proposed that the applicant be released into the community to live at an address where he had lived before, with no employment, no supports other than voluntary ones in relation to his alcohol dependency. There would be a substantial risk of relapse, and the applicant would in effect be being set up for failure. Were there to be a relapse into alcohol abuse, the risk of the applicant breaching rules applicable to him where the complainant is concerned, as he has done in the past, would be substantial.
Mr Eley pointed to the practical difficulties in enforcing the sort of geographical and alcohol-related limitations proposed by the applicant.
In respect of the health problems of the applicant, these did not place him in a high-risk category so far as COVID-19 was concerned, and nor was there anything to indicate that they could not be appropriately managed and treated in custody.
Whilst not submitting that the proposed residence of the applicant with his sister was not asserted to be inappropriate, Mr Eley submitted that he had lived there after the last family violence incident, so the rehabilitative assistance that such family engagement could offer should be doubted.
In respect of the favourable views of the complainant to a grant of bail, Mr Eley noted the limited impact of forgiveness on sentence by reference to the decision of R v Melton.[6] He also submitted that in a family violence situation, in which there were alleged to be earlier unreported incidents, and in which there was a child of the relationship, the attitude of the complainant may be quite understandable and not of much assistance to the applicant.
[6][2001] VSCA 184.
In respect of the COVID-19 considerations, it was submitted that there was no evidence of cases of the virus in Ravenhall Correctional Facility, and no evidence to indicate the applicant was at increased risk of infection due to being on remand. Whilst his time in custody may be onerous, the conditions were ‘quite similar to those conditions applicable to all residents of metropolitan Melbourne under the current Chief Health Officer restrictions.’[7]
[7]Written Submission [25].
Mr Eley submitted that even the stringent conditions proposed during the application would not ameliorate the risk posed by the applicant of endangering the safety or welfare of any person, committing an offence while on bail, or interfering with a witness or otherwise obstructing the course of justice.
In respect of the proposal that, if bail was granted with a geographical exclusion of the applicant from the cities of Casey and Greater Dandenong, there should be an exception to permit the applicant to have supervised contact with his daughter as arranged by DHHS, Mr Eley submitted that the Court should have real misgivings about such an exception, and should not permit it.
Analysis
In this case, the applicant is prima facie entitled to bail, unless the respondent satisfies me that the applicant poses an unacceptable risk as set out in s 4E of the Act. In considering whether the respondent has discharged that onus, I am required to take into account the surrounding circumstances. In doing so, I must consider the various matters contained in the non-exhaustive list of considerations in s 3AAA, and any other relevant matters.
I accept that the offending alleged here is serious. It is very concerning conduct to grab a woman around the throat and apply pressure for a significant period of time, as was allegedly done here. That this occurred in the context of a domestic relationship and in the presence of a seven year old child, whose perception was that the applicant was trying to kill the complainant, are significant aggravating features. Such conduct clearly has the potential to cause death or serious injury. Having said that, whilst the offending alleged is serious, there would be many more serious instances of the central crime here. This is reflected in the fact that the charges have been placed and remain in the summary stream.
As for the strength of the prosecution case, whilst it will depend on the credit of the complainant, there are other aspects of the evidence independent of her which may support her account, in particular, the observation of injuries to her throat and neck by medical practitioners who treated her. I think the prosecution case is relatively strong.
Having dealt with the first two matters to which attention is drawn by s 3AAA, I note the observation made by Mr Page that the vast majority of the matters in that provision fall in favour of the applicant. The force of that submission can readily be seen.
The applicant is a 44 year old man with no criminal convictions whatsoever. He has never been on bail, and hence has no adverse bail history. There was no grant of bail or sentence or other order of a court hanging over his head at the time of the alleged offending.
Whilst there is evidence to suggest that the applicant failed to properly comply with an FVIO previously in operation, this was not a no-contact order at the time of the alleged breaches. Nor has any asserted non-compliance been the subject of criminal prosecution.
There is an interim FVIO now in place. This order was made on 2 September 2020, with the consent of the applicant. Both his wife and his daughter are named as protected persons under the order. The order prohibits any contact between the applicant and either of the protected individuals and prohibits any approach by him to either of the individuals or within 200 metres of their home address in Lyndhurst. There is provision for those restrictions to give way should some conduct be permitted by a Family Law Act order, a child protection order or a written agreement about child arrangements by DHHS. No such orders or written agreements are currently in place, and nor was it submitted to me that such an order or agreement was likely to be forthcoming.
Acknowledging that the FVIO to which I have just referred has only been in place for a short time, there has been no alleged breach of it, and nor is there any evidence to suggest that the applicant in any way sought to contact the complainant at any time after he was arrested and charged on 31 July 2020.
Turning to the applicant’s personal circumstances, associations, home environment and background, other than what I have been told about his deteriorating conduct and increasing resort to the comfort of alcohol from the time he was made redundant in 2015 until the present alleged offending, and the claim of unreported family violence offending, there is little to the detriment of the applicant’s cause in this regard. As far as I have been informed, he has been a person who has been in employment. He has the support of his sister, who gave impressive evidence before me. He also apparently has the support of his parents.
In addition, the applicant has the continuing support of his wife. She is desirous of bail being granted, and of the applicant receiving treatment for his issues. It may well be that Ms Busari is in a difficult position, but in circumstances where the known view of an alleged victim of the offending is one of the specific matters mentioned in s 3AAA to which I am required to have regard, the forgiving and understanding attitude she has maintained is an important matter in support of a grant of bail. It is very common for victims of family violence to be very frightened about the prospect of further violence coming their way should the person in question be released on bail. No such concerns have been expressed by Ms Busari. I am well aware, however, that the respondent harbours serious concerns, and I take those into account.
In respect of the availability of treatment or bail support services, there is the prospect of the applicant commencing to receive counselling to assist him in dealing with what is clearly a significant problem with alcohol. It would certainly be better if actual services were now in place, rather than the onus being on the applicant to seek out the services. However, it seems to me that if he is genuine in wanting to do something about his life, with the support of his sister, if granted bail he would be able to make a start in doing something about the issues that bedevil him.
Turning to the length of time the applicant would be likely to spend in custody were bail not granted, the parties were at odds as to this. Mr Page asserted that the likely period on remand would be of the order of 12 months. Mr Eley was more optimistic, and submitted the contested case, if that was what it remained, would be likely to be heard this year. In either event, that would necessarily involve a significant period of time in custody. That then takes me to the question of the likely sentence to be imposed should the applicant be found guilty.
On that score, again, the parties were in strong disagreement. Mr Page submitted that a term of imprisonment would not be likely, and that if one was imposed, it would not be lengthy. Mr Eley, on the other hand, submitted that a term of imprisonment would be inevitable, even in the event of a plea of guilty, and that such term would exceed any period of time the applicant may spend on remand.
I must say, with all due respect, that I do not accept this submission made by Mr Eley. Acknowledging that the offending is serious, as I have already noted, and that a custodial sentence is not out of the question, it seems to me that the far more likely outcome would be that a court sentencing the applicant would settle on some non-custodial disposition. He would, after all, be sentenced as a man of mature years with no prior convictions, found guilty if it comes to it of out-of-character offending, in the context of a troubled domestic relationship, while in the grip of a drinking problem.
The circumstances of the current period of remand are difficult for the applicant, as a result of steps taken within the prison system to prevent the transmission of the COVID-19 into the prison. As well as the restrictions on personal visits and educational and other programs, he is concerned about the risk of being exposed to the virus. He is not in the position of being able to control his destiny in that regard. I do not think that the position of the applicant in respect of COVID-19 can be likened to that of the ordinary citizen in the community. I take into account in his favour the onerous nature of remand at this time, and bear in mind the uncertainty as to the period for which such conditions will prevail.
Another matter of significance where the applicant is concerned is the fact that this is the applicant’s first time in custody. Mr Page submitted that this experience can be expected to have had a salutary effect on the him. I accept that that may be so. The applicant, as a mature man of previous good character, has, over the last five weeks, experienced something totally new, and, I am sure, entirely unpleasant. He should have an acute awareness of the fate which will befall him should he be given the opportunity of bail and fail to comply with its strictures.
There is no question that the applicant does pose a risk of contacting the complainant, and interfering with her as a witness and exposing her to danger. The question is whether there are conditions of bail which could be imposed so as to mitigate that risk so that it is not unacceptable.
A substantial suite of conditions has been proposed by the applicant, and supplemented during the course of discussions. Of particular note, of course, is the proposal that he reside with his sister in Moonee Ponds, well away from the residence of the complainant. Were that to occur, he would be residing with his very supportive sister who works from home and would be in his company for a good deal of the time. Ms Busari came across to the Court as being an impressive and honest witness, who not only has the interests of her brother at heart, but also is concerned for the safety and wellbeing of her sister-in-law. Ms Busari would be in a good position to monitor the conduct of the applicant, especially in view of the current COVID-19 restrictions. She gave an undertaking to the Court to report any breaches of bail conditions to the respondent. I take her at her word.
A condition prohibiting the consumption of alcohol would constitute a severe restriction on the freedom and autonomy of the applicant. I am conscious of the need to ensure that any conduct conditions of bail are no more onerous that is necessary. I was initially concerned that a prohibition in respect of alcohol may be unreasonable. However, having heard the submissions of Mr Page and the evidence of Ms Busari, it seems to me that such a condition would be justified, and may provide some comfort to the Court.
Another condition that was proposed is a geographical limitation on the movements of the applicant. If he was faced with a clear condition prohibiting any entry by him into the City of Casey and the City of Greater Dandenong, the temptation for him to seek to visit his former home would hopefully be greatly reduced. Such a condition would be more likely to be effective if the limitation is absolute. For that reason, I am not presently inclined to countenance an exception to the condition to permit visits by the applicant to his daughter under the supervision of DHHS. It would be highly desirable that there be no scope or reason for the applicant to venture close to the home of his wife and daughter, unless required to do so to attend Court.
Taking into account all of the surrounding circumstances of this case, I am not satisfied that the applicant poses an unacceptable risk of any of the matters prescribed in s 4E of the Act. He does certainly pose a risk but I believe that the risk can be ameliorated to an acceptable level by the imposition of the stringent conditions which I will shortly announce.
Conclusion
I therefore grant bail to the applicant on the following conditions:
(a) That he attend Dandenong Magistrates’ Court on 9 September 2020 and then surrender himself, and 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;
(b) That he reside at 29/122 Maribyrnong Road, Moonee Ponds VIC 3039 (‘the residence’);
(c) That he remain and be present at the residence between the hours of 8:00pm and 5:00am each day (‘the curfew hours’);
(d) That he present himself at the front door of the residence during the curfew hours if and when called upon to do so by a member of Victoria Police;
(e) That he not consume any alcohol or any drug of dependence as listed under the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981;
(f) That he submit himself to alcohol breath testing if required to do by a member of Victoria Police, and that he agree to accompany any such member of Victoria Police to a police station for the purpose of such testing if such a request is made of him;
(g) That he not enter, pass through or remain in any part of the City of Casey or the City of Greater Dandenong other than for the purpose of attending a required court hearing in Dandenong Magistrates’ Court in the company of his legal representative;
(h) That he attend a telehealth appointment with Dr Surrender Paul Moyo of Our Medical Home Clinic located at 32-36 Remount Way, Cranbourne West VIC 3977 at 1:00pm on Tuesday 8 September 2020 for the purpose of obtaining a mental health care plan, and thereafter, comply with all lawful directions of Dr Moyo;
(i) That he contact the North and West Metro AOD services within 48 hours of his release from custody for assessment and referral and thereafter comply with all lawful directions of the North and West Metro AOD or its nominee;
(j) That he not contact Joanne Busari or Dominique Busari in any manner whatsoever, either directly or indirectly;
(k) That he abide by the terms of the family violence interim intervention order in Case Number L11822367 dated 2 September 2020, presently in place;
(l) That he comply with the directions issued from time to time by the Chief Health Officer of Victoria in respect of the COVID-19 virus.
0