Re Cresswell
[2023] VSC 382
•5 July 2023
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2023 0122
| IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) |
| - and – |
| IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by Anthony CRESSWELL |
---
JUDGE: | LASRY J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 30 June 2023 |
DATE OF RULING: | 5 July 2023 |
DATE OF PUBLISHED RULING: | 5 July 2023 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Re Cresswell |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VSC 382 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Charges of discharge firearm at a vehicle, reckless conduct endangering life, reckless conduct endangering serious injury, intentionally cause serious injury, recklessly cause serious injury, assault, prohibited person use firearm, use firearm in contravention of a firearm prohibition order, commit indictable offence whilst on bail, contravene conduct condition of bail, possess drug of dependence, use unregistered motor vehicle and fraudulently use registration label – Application opposed – Possibility of delay – Exceptional circumstances not made out – Bail refused – Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4A.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant | Ms L Papadinas | Emma Turnbull Lawyers |
| For the Respondent | Ms G McMaster | Office of Public Prosecutions |
HIS HONOUR:
On 16 January 2023, Anthony Cresswell (‘the applicant’) was arrested and subsequently remanded in custody after being charged by Detective Senior Constable Judd Darby with the following offences (‘the Darby matter’):
(a) discharge firearm at a vehicle;[1]
[1]Contrary to Firearms Act 1996, s 131A.
(a) reckless conduct endangering life;[2]
[2]Contrary to Crimes Act 1958, s 22.
(b) reckless conduct endangering serious injury;[3]
[3]Ibid s 23.
(b) intentionally cause injury (two charges);[4]
[4]Ibid s 18.
(c) recklessly cause injury (two charges);[5]
[5]Ibid.
(c) assault (common law) (two charges);
(d) prohibited person use firearm;[6]
[6]Contrary to Firearms Act 1996, s 5(1).
(d) use firearm in contravention of a firearm prohibition order;[7]
[7]Ibid s 112B.
(e) commit indictable offence whilst on bail (two charges);[8]
[8]Contrary to Bail Act 1977, s 30B.
(e) contravene conduct condition of bail (two charges);[9]
[9]Ibid s 30A(1).
(f) possess drug of dependence (two charges);[10]
(f) use unregistered motor vehicle;[11] and
(g) fraudulently use registration label.[12]
[10]Contrary to Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, s 73.
[11]Contrary to Road Safety Act 1986, s 7(1)(a).
[12]Ibid s 72.
The co-accused, James Bartlett, now currently on bail. His matter is resolved and is listed on 14 September 2023 in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court for a summary jurisdiction application. I am told that while he seeks summary jurisdiction, that will be opposed by the prosecution because of the seriousness of the matter.
It is anticipated that, after the co-accused’s matter is finalised, he will provide an undertaking to give evidence against the applicant.
At the time of the alleged offending in the Informant Darby matter, the applicant was:
(a) on bail for charges issued by Detective Senior Constable Brooke Howarth on 25 February 2021. That matter resolved on 3 March 2023, with the applicant being sentenced by the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court to an aggregate term of six months’ imprisonment (200 days pre-sentence detention reckoned as time served) after pleading guilty to three charges of commit indictable offence whilst on bail; a single charge of drive while disqualified; two charges of prohibited person possess firearm; a single charge of prohibited person possess imitation firearm; and a single charge of common law assault.[13]
(g) serving a two-year community correction order (‘CCO’) imposed in the County Court on 19 October 2022 for offences of attempt to commit an indictable offence, burglary, deal with suspected proceeds of crime, fail to comply with direction to assist and theft.
[13]See Affidavit in Response, Exhibit EZ5, for a copy of the original charge sheets and police summary; the plea summary based on the charges as resolved, dated 1 March 2023; and the Magistrates’ Court record of sentence dated 3 March 2023.
On 27 April 2023, the applicant was refused bail in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on the basis that, if granted bail, he posed an unacceptable risk of committing an offence or endangering the safety and welfare of any person. The presiding magistrate found, with reference to the seriousness of the alleged offending, that there were no conditions of bail that could ameliorate the risk posed by the applicant so that it was not unacceptable.
On 14 June 2023, the applicant filed an application for bail in this Court. The matter is currently next listed in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 13 October 2023 for a committal hearing which will depend on the resolution of Bartlett’s matter.
The prosecution case
Background
It is the prosecution case that, at the time of the alleged offending, the applicant and James Bartlett were in an ongoing dispute with a person by the name of Joe Rosse and intended to rob him in order to obtain money to pay legal bills.
The offending
At 11.09 pm on 3 January 2023, Ali and Mursal Mohseni (‘the complainants’) drove to and parked on a residential street in Clyde and stayed their car.
Just after midnight, the co-accused, who lived on the same street as the complainants’ parked car, received a message from a neighbour indicating that a suspicious car was parked on his street. The co-accused responded:
“Yeah bro I’m already onto it. I’m going to go past them in a min and look through the cunts haha and when I get back I will have the 12 haha.”
At 12.13am on 4 January 2023, the co-accused left home in a white ute. Shortly after, he exchanged text messages with his partner in relation to the complainants’ car, saying:
Co-accused’s partner: 2 guys he said
Co-accused: Yeah what do they look like and tell him to say who the fuck are you guys and what do you want… Because otherwise [the applicant] will be here in 15 and will ask them his way lol
Co-accused’s partner: He reckons it looks like Joey
Co-accused: Yeah mad… Mint lol
At 12.35am, the co-accused returned to the area in his ute and pulled up close to the complainants’ car. The applicant exited the passenger seat of the co-accused’s ute with a firearm in hand, and said: “This is them. Is that Joe fucking Rosse?”.He then approached the driver’s side window of the complainants’ car, saying “Joe Rosse? What ...”, before stepping back, turning around, and asking, “What’s your name cuz?.”
As the applicant turned around, the complainants took the opportunity to start their car and accelerate away, following which it is alleged the applicant raised the firearm and shot a round into their car. This was captured on CCTV. The shot went through the back window of the complainants’ car and lodged into the back of the driver’s seat. Ballistics testing later identified that the round had been discharged from a shotgun, and that the size of the pellets meant they were fired from a 12-gauge shotgun.
After the complainants’ drove away, CCTV captured the ute driving through nearby streets, allegedly trying to locate the complainants, before later returning to the scene. After returning, the applicant was seen exiting the ute with what appeared to be a shortened longarm. Both the victims were wounded to some degree.
Arrests, interviews and phone analysis
On 12 January 2023, Bartlett was arrested and taken to the Narre Warren Police Station to be interviewed. During his interview, he said that:
(a) he had issues with a person by the name of Joe Rosse;
(b) he and the applicant wanted to rob Mr Rosse, and had spent the days preceding the shooting driving around trying to find him or one of his associates to rob;
(c) he was motivated to participate in a robbery against Mr Rosse in part because he needed to pay legal fees for a committal hearing in a separate matter;
(d) he and the applicant agreed to commit the robbery against Mr Rosse together;
(e) the complainants were not the intended target;
(f) immediately prior to the shooting the co-accused picked the applicant up on a residential street in Clyde; the applicant entered the ute with a firearm; the co-accused drove back to the complainants’ parked car; the applicant exited the ute and the co-accused remained in the driver’s seat; before the co-accused witnessed the shooting; and
(g) following the shooting, the applicant directed the co-accused to burn his ute, but the co-accused refused and the applicant instead directed him to change his numberplates and the appearance of the ute, and conceal it with an associate.
Police analysed Bartlett’s phone and found:
(a) a video of the applicant and the co-accused several hours after the shooting, in which they could be seen filming a toolbox with a number of spent and unspent casings in it;
(b) a message exchange between the applicant and the co-accused, dated 8 January 2023:
Applicant: Seen ya mate joey today
Applicant: He apologised
Co-accused: You have dead set lost it cunt and I want nothing to do with you because I don’t need any of this bullshit of schoolyard politics… the only reason I got in contact with you in he first place was to pay my upcoming legal cost and now im sitting here worse off then before…
(c) a screenshot of a message posted in a group chat, reading, “Can we address the fact that there was a drive by shooting on Tuesday last week and there is no media coverage or anything in this group chat about it. We had found out about it by a bunnings employee who lives on… that street and police and investigators had knocked on his door asking if they caught anything on camera”, that was sent from the applicant to the co-accused, with a direction from the applicant for the co-accused to call him on an encrypted messaging service as soon as possible; and
(d) various, more general, messages indicative of the co-accused following up debts on the applicant’s behalf.
On 16 January 2023, members of the Special Operations Group went to a KFC carpark in Cranbourne to arrest the applicant. At the time, the applicant was in possession of an unregistered motorcycle with false number plates, and some methylamphetamine and cocaine. The applicant was injured during his arrest, resulting in him being taken to hospital and not being interviewed until 18 January 2023. During his interview, the applicant largely answered no comment to questions put to him, but did say that:
(a) he knew of the co-accused, but was not his friend and could not recall the last time he saw him;
(b) he and Joe Rosse used to be friends, and there were no issues between them; and
(c) he was most likely asleep at home at the time of the shooting, and that CCTV would show that he didn’t leave his house.
The applicant was charged and remanded in custody.
The law
Guiding principles
The present application is governed by the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’). It is the intention of Parliament that, in interpreting and applying the Act, the Court have regard to the following guiding principles:[14]
[14]The Act s 1B(2).
(a) maximising the safety of the community and persons affected by crime to the greatest extent possible; and
(b) taking account of the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty; and
(c) promoting fairness, transparency and consistency in bail decision making; and
(d) promoting public understanding of bail practices and procedures.[15]
[15]Ibid s 1B(1).
Step 1 – exceptional circumstances test
Because the applicant is accused of a Schedule 2 offence[16] which is alleged to have been committed while he was on bail for another Schedule 2 offence,[17] bail must be refused unless he satisfies the Court that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail.[18] In considering whether exceptional circumstances exist, the Court must take into account the surrounding circumstances, including those relevant in s 3AAA(1) of the Act.[19]
[16]Specifically, using a firearm in the course of committing an indictable offence (sch 2, item 23); and offences against the Act: contravening conduct conditions of bail and committing indictable offences whilst on bail (sch 2, item 30).
[17]Specifically, using a firearm in the course of committing an indictable offence (sch 2, item 23); offences against the Act: committing indictable offences whilst on bail (sch 2, item 30); and intentionally cause serious injury (sch 2, item 6).
[18]The Act ss 4AA(2)(c)(i) and 4A(1)-(2).
[19]Ibid 4A(3).
Meaning of exceptional circumstances
The phrase ‘exceptional circumstances’ is not defined in the Act. In Re Smith-Goode,[20] Kaye JA, sitting in the trial division, said of the exceptional circumstances test that:
In essence, in order to meet that requirement, the applicant must demonstrate the existence of circumstances which are such as to take the case out of the ordinary. In other words, the circumstances must be exceptional to the ordinary circumstances, which would otherwise entitle an applicant to bail. It is accepted that exceptional circumstances may be established by a combination of circumstances, which, individually, might not be sufficient to be considered exceptional.[21]
[20][2022] VSC 798 (Kaye JA).
[21]Ibid [47].
In Roberts v The Queen,[22] the Court of Appeal discussed a number of factors commonly relied upon to satisfy the exceptional circumstances test, and concluded:
What appears to underpin the judicial recognition of these different types of circumstances as justifying a grant of bail is that they are seen to render continued pre-trial detention unjust, even in relation to very serious offending…
It is the perceived need to avert or mitigate such injustice which justifies the grant of bail — provided always that the circumstances can properly be characterised as exceptional.[23]
[22][2021] VSCA 28 (Maxwell P, Niall and Emerton JJA).
[23]Ibid [47]-[48].
Step 2 – unacceptable risk test
If I am satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances, I must then move to consider the unacceptable risk test and the onus shifts to the respondent under s 4E(1)(a) of the Act.[24] In determining the question of unacceptable risk, I again consider the surrounding circumstances and whether there are any conditions of bail that might be imposed to mitigate any risk so that it is not unacceptable.[25]
[24]The Act ss 4A(4), 4D, and 4E(1)-(2).
[25]Ibid s 4E(3).
The applicant’s personal circumstances
The applicant is 29 years of age.
According to a letter from the applicant’s mother, the applicant was raised in a highly dysfunctional home environment in which he was subjected to ongoing physical and psychological abuse at the hands of his father.[26] He found some refuge in his maternal grandparents, with whom he would stay intermittently.[27] While his grandparents have since passed away, the applicant remains supported by his mother and only sibling, Jack, who has cerebral palsy.[28]
[26]Affidavit in Support, Exhibit ET-4 (Letter of Angela Cunningham dated 24 April 2023).
[27]Ibid.
[28]Ibid (Letter of Angela Cunningham dated 24 April 2023; and Letter of Jack Cunningham dated 24 April 2023)
The applicant is currently married with two young children, who are six and seven years old respectively.[29] The applicant and his wife, Erika, have been together for nearly a decade.[30] It is claimed, and not disputed by the respondent, that the imprisonment of the applicant is causing hardship to the family. I accept that to be true.
[29]Ibid (Letter of Erika Smith dated 22 April 2023).
[30]Ibid.
The applicant is a qualified landscaper and worked in that industry for some time before losing his job in the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.[31] This was reportedly the catalyst for a decline in the applicant’s mental health, and descend into increased substance use (having initially commenced drug use at the age of 16) and the criminal justice system.[32]
[31]Ibid.
[32]Ibid; Affidavit in Support, Exhibit ET-3 (Report of Jackson Oppy, undated).
At the time of his arrest, the applicant was unemployed and living with his wife and children in Clyde North, and reportedly using methylamphetamine on a daily basis.[33]
[33]Affidavit in Support, Exhibit ET-3 (Report of Jackson Oppy, undated).
Criminal history
The applicant has a cross-jurisdictional criminal record, including for traffic offences, breaches of family violence orders, and assault offences in Tasmania (2011 and 2012), dishonesty offences in Queensland (2013 and 2014), and traffic, dishonesty, property, weapons, firearms, drug, assault and bail offences in Victoria (2020 to 2023).[34]
[34]Affidavit in Response, Exhibit EZ-4 (The applicant’s criminal records).
The applicant’s contentions
Nature and seriousness of the alleged offending
It is conceded that the allegations in this matter are serious. However, it is noted that the most serious of the charges against the applicant is discharging a firearm at a car, and that the balance of the charges are ones that are otherwise routinely determined summarily in the Magistrates’ Court.
Strength of the prosecution case
The applicant denies any involvement in the alleged offending and notes that the case against him relies heavily on the co-accused’s evidence, which will be challenged, and without which it is submitted that the case is left as an entirely circumstantial one, which could not be described as strong or overwhelming, but equivocal at best.
Criminal history, compliance with bail and other court orders
While it is acknowledged that the applicant’s criminal record shows a rapid escalation in offending over the last three years, it is submitted that this should be viewed in the context of his methylamphetamine addiction. It is not disputed that his criminal history is relevant, or that it includes dispositions for bail offences, but it is submitted that the bail offences are not overwhelming for someone who has a serious drug addiction. It is acknowledged that the applicant was on bail and a CCO at the time of the alleged offending, and submitted that compliance with the CCO, which currently remains on foot, could be made a condition of bail, if bail is granted. It is also acknowledged that the applicant’s compliance with the CCO had regressed prior to his arrest in the present matter.[35]
[35]Judicial monitoring reports dated 16 December 2022 and 14 March 2023.
Family support and stable accommodation
The applicant is strongly supported by his wife and children, and proposes to return to live with them in the family home in Clyde North if bail is granted. The applicant is also supported by his mother and younger brother, who have both provided letters attesting to his character, as has the applicant’s wife.[36]
[36]Affidavit in Support, Exhibit ET-4 (Letter of Erika Smith dated 22 April 2023; Letter of Angela Cunningham dated 24 April 2023; and Letter of Jack Cunningham dated 24 April 2023)
Employment
If bail is granted, the applicant proposes to work for Jason Williams, owner of Cretestruct, a concreting and framing company in Langwarrin. In a letter dated 25 April 2023, Mr Williams confirmed that he was aware of the charges against the applicant and able to offer him secure and flexible employment to fit around any bail conditions that might be imposed.[37] Mr Williams stated further that he had known the applicant for six years, and worked with him previously.
[37]Affidavit in Support, Exhibit ET-5 (Letter of Jack Williams dated 25 April 2023).
Availability of treatment or bail support services
If bail is granted, the applicant proposes to engage in a 24-week outpatient treatment and monitoring program known as BailSafe, which is described as:
…a rehabilitation treatment and monitoring program for adults on bail or seeking bail who require support and rehabilitation for substance use, addiction, mental health, and medical care. The program aims to reduce the likelihood of people re-offending by providing patients access integrated care to address the physical and mental health illnesses that directly contribute to [anti-social] behavior.[38]
[38]BailSafe treatment and monitoring plan dated 19 June 2023, p. 12.
The program model is that:
Patients are assigned a case manager who meets with them weekly to co-ordinate care, review their progress and provide updates to the courts. Patients are supported by a General Practitioner, Psychologist, Accredited Social Worker, and Case Manager, supervised urine drug screen, E-health, and digital support applications… All medical and counselling appointments are online using Telehealth...[39]
[39]Ibid (emphasis added).
In addition to online engagement with various psychosocial clinicians, the applicant would be required to participate in twice-weekly supervised urine drug screens, and subject to 24/7 GPS monitoring via an electronic device that can be pre-programmed to notify relevant persons if the applicant were to breach a curfew or exclusion-zone condition.
In an undated report from Jackson Oppy of BailSafe, it is noted that the applicant was assessed by BailSafe via telephone consultation on 20 April 2023 and found suitable for the BailSafe program, on the basis that he:
1. Meets the criteria for substance use disorder (SUD) Severe
2. Meets criteria for active mental disorder - Severe
3. Agrees to the weekly attendance requirements
4. Agrees to attend local pathology centre twice weekly
5. Has stable home address
6. Access to a digital device with working camera
7. Access to reliable broadband internet connection
8. Consents to share treatment compliance reports
9. Displays sufficient orientation, and motivation.[40]
[40]Affidavit in Support, Exhibit ET-3 (Report of Jackson Oppy, undated).
A difficulty is that Mr Oppy does not appear to me to have the requisite qualifications to diagnose a severe substance disorder and there is no properly qualified medical professional to make these assessments.
BailSafe is also said to have strict reporting guidelines, which would include providing the informant with a weekly report on the applicant’s compliance with the program, and notifying the informant immediately in the event of any positive drug screens or other bail breaches.
Mr Oppy gave evidence on the application. The arrangements to be made by BailSafe are almost entirely online. Mr Oppy has made some assessment of the applicant but, with respect and as I have said, without any appropriate qualifications to do so. There are no qualified psychologists assessing people like the applicant with a view to properly assessing their amenability for treatment or their likely prognosis.
I do not regard these proposals as particularly satisfactory.
Delay and likely sentence
The applicant submits that the anticipated delay in this matter is significant. It is noted that he was arrested on 16 January 2023, and that his matter is currently next listed for a committal hearing in the Magistrates’ Court on 13 October 2023. However, it is submitted that the committal hearing will likely need to be adjourned to allow for the final resolution of the co-accused’s matter, noting that the co-accused is intended to be a prosecution witness and will not be in a position to give evidence at a committal hearing until his own matter is finalised. The co-accused’s matter is next listed for an opposed summary jurisdiction application on 14 September 2023, but, if summary jurisdiction is refused, the co-accused’s matter will need to be adjourned off to a plea hearing in the County Court, which the applicant submits would be unlikely to occur this year. In the applicant’s submission, this would mean that he could spend a year or more on remand awaiting a committal hearing, and at least a further year awaiting trial, resulting in an aggregate delay between arrest and trial of at least two years.
It is conceded that, if convicted, the applicant will likely be sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
The respondent’s contentions
The application is opposed on two grounds. First, the applicant has not discharged the burden of satisfying the Court that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail. Second, the applicant poses an unacceptable risk of each of the matters set out in s 4E(1)(a) of the Act.
Criminal history
The respondent notes that the applicant has a relevant criminal history, including for numerous firearms offences.
Family support and stable accommodation
The respondent submits that the applicant’s proposed bail address is not suitable due to his history of offending in the same area. The respondent notes that the applicant was living at the address at the time of the alleged offending, which did not act as a deterrent, and considers it is unlikely that the applicant’s wife will notify police if she develops any concerns about the applicant’s behaviour such as bail non-compliance, while he is living at that address.
Availability of treatment or bail support services
The respondent raises concerns about the ability of the BailSafe program to adequately monitor the applicant and report any bail breaches in a timely manner.
Complainants’ views on bail
The complainants have both expressed concerns for their safety if the applicant is granted bail, particularly in circumstances where they suspect the applicant knows where they live and is himself proposing to live in the same area. The complainants are both seeking ongoing treatment as a result of the alleged offending.
Delay and likely sentence
The respondent agrees that the applicant’s committal hearing is likely to be adjourned if the co-accused’s summary jurisdiction application is refused, and is accordingly in the process of liaising with the co-accused’s solicitor to see if the summary jurisdiction application can be brought forward. The respondent notes, however, that in any event having regard to the seriousness of the charges against the applicant and his criminal history, it is unlikely the applicant will spend more time on remand than any sentence ultimately imposed if he is convicted.
Unacceptable risk
Endangering the safety and welfare of any person
The respondent submits that the applicant poses an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety and welfare of any person on the basis that the alleged offending occurred in a public place, involved the use of a firearm, and resulted in innocent members of the public being injured. The respondent notes that the firearm used in the shooting is yet to be recovered, as is the toolbox of unspent ammunition rounds depicted in a video on the co-accused’s phone filmed just hours after the shooting.
Committing an offence whilst on bail
The respondent submits that the applicant poses an unacceptable risk of committing an offence while on bail, with reference to the fact that he was on a CCO and bail for other offences at the time of the alleged offending (which included a condition that he not associate with the co-accused);[41] and has a history of committing offences while on bail, as evidenced by his criminal record.
[41]See Affidavit in Response, Exhibit EZ-6, for a copy of the applicant’s bail conditions in the informant Howarth matter as at 22 October 2022.
Interfering with a witness or otherwise obstructing the course of justice in any matter
The respondent holds concerns that the applicant will interfere with a witness or otherwise obstruct the course of justice if granted bail, noting that the applicant knows the co-accused has made a statement against him that is of significance to the prosecution case. In addition, it is noted that the applicant likely knows where one of the complainants lives, and that he proposes to live in close proximity to that address.
Failing to surrender into custody in accordance with the conditions of bail
The respondent submits that the applicant poses an unacceptable risk of failing to answer bail, noting his history of committing bail offences, unlicensed driving and being a prohibited person possessing firearms. The respondent notes further that the applicant has outstanding bench warrants against him in Tasmania and Queensland for driving related offences in 2012 and 2014 respectively.
Consideration
Counsel for the applicant relied on three primary factors that were argued to be capable of constituting the exceptional circumstances required for a grant of bail in this application. The factor with most substance was the delay which might amount, on counsel’s calculations, to a period of two years. Quite properly she did not submit that such a delay would exceed the likely sentence to be imposed should the applicant be convicted of the offences.
The delay is unsatisfactory but quantifying it in that way depends on contingencies which have not yet occurred. Those contingencies concern the accomplice being dealt with expeditiously which may yet occur. This Court, me included, has made many pronouncements about the problems of delay almost all of which highlight the injustice of it. However, in an overall context I do not regard the possible delay as a certainty and as events develop the nature of it can be re-visited in any subsequent application. I do not regard the delay as being, of itself, an exceptional circumstance.
As to strength of the prosecution case, I would simply conclude that having heard the informant give evidence and be cross examined by counsel for the applicant, the case is a reasonably strong circumstantial case and the proposed evidence of the accomplice incriminating the applicant is significantly supported by other strands in the evidence including phone and CCTV evidence.
The other consideration relied on is the availability of the resources of BailSafe to assist and monitor the applicant. As I have already said, I found this a relatively unsatisfactory part of the evidence for the reasons I have already mentioned.
I do not regard any of the matters relied upon as amounting to exceptional circumstances either individually or in combination. The nature and seriousness of the alleged offending was significant and, if proved, is a serious example of the offences charged. The applicant’s criminal history is also relevant and significant and at the time of this offending he was both on bail and a CCO for other matters and thus, had not complied with an earlier grant of bail. As I have already outlined, I have considered the matters raised in relation to the applicant’s personal circumstances, associations, home environment and background. It is not said that he has any special vulnerability.
Given my conclusion about the absence of exceptional circumstances, it follows that the application for bail must be refused.
---
0
2
0