Re CT
[2018] VSC 559
•7 September 2018
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S CR 2018 0226
| IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 |
| and |
| IN THE MATTER of an application by CT |
---
JUDGE: | Champion J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 31 August, 7 September 2018 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 7 September 2018 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Re CT |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2018] VSC 559 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Children’s Court – Charges of robbery, affray, theft, intentionally causing injury, recklessly causing injury, assault by kicking, assault in company, unlawful assault, discharge missile, attempted theft, committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, attempted robbery, assault with intent to rob – Applicant required to show exceptional circumstances – Bail refused – Bail Act 1977.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant | Mr M. Allen | Patrick Allen Law |
| For the Respondent | Mr N. Moran | Victoria Police |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
On 12 July 2018, CT (‘the applicant’) was arrested and charged by police with the offences of robbery (two counts), affray, theft (three counts), intentionally causing injury, recklessly causing injury, assault by kicking, and assault in company. The charges arise out of events alleged to have occurred on 1 July 2018.
At the time of the alleged offending, the applicant was on bail and on summons in respect of six outstanding matters. He was also subject to a 12-month Youth Probation Order following a finding of guilt on 8 June 2018 for charges of affray, unlawful assault (two counts) and committing an indictable offence whilst on bail.
In respect of the July charges, there is one known co-accused who was granted bail on 12 July 2018 at the Sunshine Children’s Court. It is alleged that there were two additional offenders also involved, however, they have not yet been identified.
The applicant has been in custody since the day of his arrest. On 10 August 2018, he applied to the Melbourne Children’s Court for bail, but was refused on 13 August 2018. He is presently 16 years old.
By an application dated 21 August 2018, the applicant has applied to this Court for a grant of bail. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn on 21 August 2018 by the applicant’s solicitor, Patrick Allen.
The alleged offending
At approximately 12.40am on 1 July 2018, the two complainants were allegedly approached by the applicant while waiting to be picked up outside a residence in Melton West. They had attended a house party at the residence and were unknown to the applicant.
Also outside was a group of youths of African descent, including the co-accused. The complainants had met the co-accused earlier in the evening through a mutual friend.
While outside the residence the applicant allegedly made repeated demands for the first complainant’s mobile telephone in a threatening manner. The first complainant refused the demands and attempted to walk away. He was immediately surrounded by three other males, including the co-accused.
The prosecution case is that the group assaulted the first complainant by punching him to the head and mouth. This caused him to fall to the ground, where he was kicked to the head and drifted in and out of consciousness. A number of items were stolen from the first complainant following the assault, including his phone, bag, wallet, jumper, jacket, shoes, and house and car keys.
The applicant is alleged to have been part of the group that assaulted the first complainant. During the assault, the second complainant attempted to call ‘000’. However, the applicant allegedly demanded he hand over his phone and he complied.
The prosecution alleges that the applicant was later identified by a witness on Facebook. Further, he was identified as being the main offender in the assault. The applicant was also identified by the first complainant on Facebook. Investigators subsequently established the Facebook profile identified belonged to the applicant.
On 3 July 2018, a search warrant was executed at the applicant’s home, however, he was not present and no items were seized. The applicant’s mother advised police that he did not keep any personal belongings at the house and that he came and went as he pleased through his bedroom window.
Following his arrest on 11 July 2018, the applicant denied the charges against him, stating that he was at his cousin’s house in Wyndham Vale on the evening of the alleged offending. The applicant otherwise provided a ‘no comment’ record of interview.
Other outstanding matters
At the time of the alleged offending in July 2018, the applicant was on bail and summons for the following six sets of matters. These are all listed for mention on 6 September 2018 at the Sunshine Children’s Court.
Informant Wilson
On 26 November 2017, the applicant was charged with the following offences, alleged to have been committed on 12 August 2017:
(a) robbery;
(b) theft; and
(c) unlawful assault (two counts).
It is alleged that the applicant and a number of associates attended a JB-HiFi store in Preston, where they stole and concealed a number of headphones in their bags and on their persons. A female staff member attempted to intervene and was allegedly pushed to the shoulder and stomach area. Another staff member was allegedly punched to the face after attempting to pursue the group.
The applicant was released on bail in relation to this matter.
The applicant’s solicitor has advised that this matter has resolved as a guilty plea to one charge of theft, and that the remaining charges will be withdrawn.
Informant Beech
On 2 March 2018, the applicant was charged with the following offences which are alleged to have been committed on 2 March 2018:
(a) affray;
(b) recklessly cause injury (two counts);
(c) intentionally cause injury (two counts);
(d) assault by kicking (two counts);
(e) theft;
(f) assault in company (two counts); and
(g) discharge missile.
In summary, the prosecution case is that the applicant was involved in a large-scale violent affray against members of the public and security staff at Woodgrove Shopping Centre in Melton West. The applicant is alleged to have been the main offender of a group of approximately 40 youths. The affray allegedly erupted after certain persons refused to fight at the behest of the applicant’s associates. The applicant’s involvement is alleged to have included:
(a) kicking a complainant to the face;
(b) throwing a chair into a group of bystanders;
(c) holding a complainant up against a wall and, with his associates, kicking and punching him until security staff intervened;
(d) pursuing a complainant with his associates, and punching him repeatedly to the head and upper body, until security staff intervened again; and
(e) stealing a baton from a female security staff member.
The applicant was released on bail in relation to this matter.
Informant Smith
On 12 May 2018, the applicant was charged with the following offences which are alleged to have been committed on 12 May 2018:
(a) attempted theft; and
(b) commit an indictable offence whilst on bail.
It is alleged that the applicant attended a David Jones store in the Melbourne CBD with friends and attempted to steal a vest by concealing it underneath his clothes. He was subsequently intercepted by security staff, whom he told to ‘fuck off’, before police attended and arrested him. A search of the applicant’s person revealed that he did not have the vest in his possession.
The applicant was released on bail in relation to this matter.
Informant Henley
On 15 May 2018, the applicant was charged on summons with the following offences which are alleged to have been committed on 31 March 2018:
(a) theft; and
(b) commit an indictable offence whilst on bail.
It is alleged that the applicant stole a pair of ‘Dr Dre’ brand headphones from a female complainant while she was distracted outside a store at the Woodgrove Shopping Centre.
Informant Kincaid
On 15 May 2018, the applicant was also charged with the following offences which are alleged to have been committed on 7 April 2018:
(a) attempted robbery;
(b) theft;
(c) attempted theft; and
(d) commit an indictable offence whilst on bail.
It is alleged that at approximately 3.04am on 7 April 2018, the applicant and a number of associates approached two complainants on a Sunbury-bound ‘Metro’ train and made demands for their phones. The applicant allegedly took one of the complainant’s phones, which was returned shortly after when one of his associates became concerned that they would ‘get caught’. The complainants exited the train at St Albans Train Station and reported the incident to protective services officers.
The applicant was released on bail in relation to this matter.
Informant Schultz
On 15 May 2018, the applicant was charged with the following offences which are alleged to have been committed on 21 April 2018:
(a) attempted robbery;
(b) assault with intent to rob (two counts);
(c) intentionally cause injury;
(d) recklessly cause injury;
(e) affray;
(f) assault in company (two counts);
(g) unlawful assault; and
(h) commit an indictable offence whilst on bail.
The prosecution alleges that a group of approximately twelve males of African descent, including the applicant, surrounded and assaulted two complainants at a bus stop in Sunshine. The complainants initially managed to evade the group, but were pursued by the applicant and two associates. One of the complainants was tripped by the applicant and his associates who proceeded to stomp on and kick the complainant whilst the other complainant was held back from rendering assistance. Witnesses ultimately intervened, helping the complainants whilst they waited for emergency services to arrive.
The applicant was released on bail in relation to this matter.
The applicant
The applicant is a 16 year old male of African descent. He is the third eldest of six children. The applicant’s family migrated to Australia from South Sudan when he was three years old. The applicant’s parents are separated.
Prior to the applicant’s arrest and incarceration, he was residing with his mother and siblings. The applicant’s father is employed full-time in the construction industry. He remains involved in the applicant’s care through regular visits to the family home and financial support. The applicant’s mother is employed on a part-time basis at a café.
Criminal history
On 8 June 2018, the applicant was found guilty of affray, two counts of unlawful assault and committing an indictable offence whilst on bail. He was sentenced to a 12 month Youth Probation Order in relation to these offences.
Relevantly, the applicant also previously completed a Diversion Plan, from 16 November 2017 to 8 February 2018. This was in relation to charges of aggravated burglary and burglary, which were struck out upon his successful completion of the Plan.
Youth Justice report
A report dated 9 August 2018 was prepared for the purpose of a previous bail application by Meagan Dockeary, a case manager with Youth Justice. That report indicated that at that time, Youth Justice did not support a grant of bail.
Ms Dockeary highlighted several concerns with the applicant’s overall compliance with court orders and supervision, and noted his resistance to engage with relevant supports. Ms Dockeary was of the view that the applicant lacked maturity and insight in appreciating the gravity of his offending and the impact of his antisocial associations.
Relevantly, the applicant was reported as having been involved in six incidents whilst on remand, including threatening and assaulting other youths and staff. The most serious of these incidents involved the applicant and two other youths kicking and punching a staff member to the head and body, resulting in the staff member having to be transported to hospital.
Whilst the applicant has agreed to engage with Youth Justice bail support services, Ms Dockeary maintained that the combination of his remand history, poor compliance on probation and bail, lack of attendance at school, and refusal to engage in anger management counselling, all contributed to a future risk of non-compliance with bail.
Notwithstanding these concerns, Ms Dockeary confirmed that Youth Justice was willing to supervise the applicant should he be granted bail.
On 30 August 2018, an addendum to that report was filed for the purposes of this application. That report repeated that the applicant remained unsuitable for bail due to concerns about his ability to comply with court orders and Youth Justice supervision. The report expressed ‘low confidence’ in the applicant’s ability to comply with the conditions of a bail order, despite adjustments in his behaviour since the first report.
Furthermore, on 7 September 2018 at the second hearing of this application, Ms Dockeary attended Court and notified me of further incidents alleged against the applicant whilst on remand. It was alleged that some of these incidents had occurred while this application was part-heard. These allegations include a general threat to Youth Justice staff members, a verbal threat to a female staff member, and engaging in disruptive behaviour with a group of peers.
The applicable legislation
Pursuant to s 346(6) of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (the ‘CYF Act’), the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’) applies to the present application, except insofar as it is inconsistent with the CYF Act.
Accordingly, pursuant to s 3B(1) of the Act, the Court is required to take into account the following matters in making a determination in relation to the present application made by a child:
(a)the need to consider all other options before remanding the child in custody; and
(b)the need to strengthen and preserve the relationship between the child and the child's family, guardians or carers; and
(c)the desirability of allowing the living arrangements of the child to continue without interruption or disturbance; and
(d)the desirability of allowing the education, training or employment of the child to continue without interruption or disturbance; and
(e)the need to minimise the stigma to the child resulting from being remanded in custody; and
(f)the likely sentence should the child be found guilty of the offence charged; and
(g)the need to ensure that the conditions of bail are no more onerous than are necessary and do not constitute unfair management of the child.
Initially both parties submitted that the applicant was required to demonstrate a ‘compelling reason’ to justify bail, pursuant to s 4C of the Act. It was submitted that the applicant had been charged with a Schedule 2 offence,[1] by virtue of being charged with an indictable offence (robbery) whilst on bail for another indictable offence (intentionally causing injury).[2]
[1]Bail Act 1977 (Vic) sch 2 item 1(a).
[2]Refer to the ‘informant Schulz’ matter.
That position changed during the hearing of this application. Both parties accepted that on closer analysis of the legislative provisions and the charges against the applicant, the ‘exceptional circumstances’ test applied, pursuant to s 4D of the Act.
If an applicant is charged with a Schedule 1 offence, s 4A(1) of the Act provides that the Court must refuse bail unless satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail.
Schedule 1 item 3 of the Act provides a Schedule 1 offence includes:
A Schedule 2 offence that is alleged to have been committed by the accused—
(a) while on bail for any Schedule 1 offence or Schedule 2 offence.
Schedule 2 item 1 of the Act relevantly provides a Schedule 2 offence includes:
An indictable offence that is alleged to have been committed by the accused—
(a) while on bail for another indictable offence.
For the reasons that follow, the applicant falls into the exceptional circumstances category. The applicant is alleged to have committed offences on 1 July 2018. At that time he was already subject to a number of grants of bail by reason of a sequence of indictable charges laid by the informants Wilson, Beech, Smith, Henley, Kincaid and Schultz. Relevantly, the latter four informants each charged the applicant with the specific offence of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail. This is an offence that falls within item (1)(a) of Schedule 2 of the Act.
Accordingly, the applicant has been charged with a series of Schedule 2 offences that are alleged to have been committed while he was on bail for another indictable offence. These offences fall under Schedule 1 pursuant to item (3)(a) of Schedule 1 of the Act, and the applicant thus falls into the exceptional circumstances category for the purposes of bail.
During the hearing I was referred to the decision of Re Pham,[3] in which Emerton J considered the interaction between Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of the Act. In that case, the applicant was alleged to have committed Schedule 2 offences while he was subject to a community correction order (‘CCO’) for a Schedule 2 offence. It was argued by the respondent that, by virtue of item 3(3)(d) of Schedule 1, he was deemed to have committed a Schedule 1 offence, and therefore subject to the exceptional circumstances test.
[3][2018] VSC 436, unpublished as at 14 September 2018.
Emerton J rejected this interpretation of the provisions. Instead, Her Honour accepted the applicant’s submission that as a court had already dealt with the charge of robbery and sentenced the applicant to a CCO, that offence could not be considered to re-classify the offence subject to the bail application. In my view, these circumstances do not apply to the application before me. Whilst not finally deciding the matter, as the applicant did not fulfil the compelling reason test, Her Honour expressed a preliminary view that:
the applicant is correct in submitting that cl 1 of Schedule 2 describes offences that remain ‘alleged’. In my view, cl 1 of Schedule 2 is intended to apply to the unproven offences for which bail is sought, in this case, the Bail Offences.[4]
[4]Re Pham [VSC] VSC 436 [29].
I respectfully agree with this interpretation. Her Honour further stated that ‘in the absence of clear indication to the contrary, this choice of words must be taken to involve a deliberate decision on the part of the legislature to limit the offences captured by the uplift clauses to offences that remain to be proven’.[5]
[5]Ibid [30].
In my opinion, in respect of the applicant’s situation, Schedules 1 and 2 of the Act do operate so that he is charged with a Schedule 1 offence.
Pursuant to s 4A(3) of the Act, in considering whether exceptional circumstances exist, the Court must take into account the ‘surrounding circumstances’. Pursuant to s 3AAA, this includes, but is not limited to, the following –
(a)the nature and seriousness of the alleged offending, including whether it is a serious example of the offence;
(b)the strength of the prosecution case;
(c)the accused's criminal history;
(d) the extent to which the accused has complied with the conditions of any earlier grant of bail;
(e)whether, at the time of the alleged offending, the accused –
(i) was on bail for another offence; or
(ii)was subject to a summons to answer to a charge for another offence; or
(iii) was at large awaiting trial for another offence; or
(iv) was released under a parole order; or
(v)was subject to a community correction order made in respect of, or was otherwise serving a sentence for, another offence;
(f) whether there is in force –
(i)a family violence intervention order made against the accused; or
(ii) a family violence safety notice issued against the accused; or
(iii) a recognised DVO made against the accused;
(g)the accused's personal circumstances, associations, home environment and background;
(h)any special vulnerability of the accused, including being a child or an Aboriginal person, being in ill health or having a cognitive impairment, an intellectual disability or a mental illness;
(i) the availability of treatment or bail support services;
(j)any known view or likely view of an alleged victim of the offending on the grant of bail, the amount of bail or the conditions of bail;
(k)the length of time the accused is likely to spend in custody if bail is refused;
(l)the likely sentence to be imposed should the accused be found guilty of the offence with which the accused is charged;
(m)whether the accused has publicly expressed support for a terrorist act or a terrorist organisation or for the provision of resources to a terrorist organisation.[6]
[6]Bail Act 1997 (Vic) s 3AAA.
If satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail, I am required to apply the ‘unacceptable risk test’ pursuant to ss 4A(4) and 4B of the Act.
Furthermore, pursuant to s 4E(1)(a) of the Act, the court must refuse bail if the prosecution satisfies the court that there is an unacceptable risk that the applicant 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
In making this determination, the court is required to have regard to the surrounding circumstances set out at s 3AAA of the Act, and consider whether any conditions of bail could be imposed that might mitigate any risk so that it is not unacceptable. [7]
[7]Ibid s 4E(3)(a)–(b).
The applicant’s contentions
It was submitted for the applicant that the following matters are established by the evidence and, together show exceptional circumstances such that the applicant should be granted bail:
(a) Weakness of the prosecution case – the applicant was identified by the complainant through a Facebook search, but was otherwise unknown to him. The applicant submits that identification evidence of this nature is fragile and unreliable, and accordingly, contends that the prosecution case is ‘extremely weak’.
(b) Delay - the applicant has been in custody since his arrest on 12 July 2018 and the matter is likely to experience significant further delay before the proceedings are finally resolved. The matter is next listed for a special mention on 13 September 2018, and a contested hearing on 8 and 9 October 2018.
(c) Youth – the applicant is 16 years old, and due to his age is more vulnerable to the adverse impacts of custody.
(d) Family support – the applicant is supported by his parents, who desire for him to return home and re-engage with education and professional supports.
(e) Suitable accommodation – the applicant has stable accommodation available with his mother and siblings. His father resides nearby.
(f) Youth Justice support – the applicant is able to engage with the Youth Justice Intensive Supervised Bail Support Program.[8] It is proposed this would involve access to various community engagements, including support from ‘U-Turn 193 Crime Prevention Program’, and one-on-one mentoring sessions with a case-worker that would focus on ‘role modelling’, pro-social skills, appropriate emotional responses, positive peer relationships and recreational activities.
(g) Lack of criminal history – the applicant has a limited proven criminal history. This involved a finding of guilt in relation to charges of affray, unlawful assault (two counts) and committing an indictable offence whilst on bail. The applicant was sentenced in relation to this matter to a 12 month probation order on 8 June 2018.
(h) Remand period likely to exceed any sentence – due to the applicant’s age and personal circumstances, the applicant would be unlikely to receive a custodial sentence if found guilty of the present charges.
[8]Notwithstanding that the applicant was assessed by Youth Justice as not being a suitable candidate for bail.
The respondent’s contentions
The respondent opposes the application for bail, submitting that exceptional circumstances have not been made out. Further, it is submitted that the applicant is an unacceptable risk of offending whilst on bail and endangering the safety and welfare of members of the public.
In support of these submissions, the respondent contends that the applicant has demonstrated a propensity toward violence against vulnerable members of the community, and has continued to commit offences whilst on bail and subject to other court orders, including probation.
Discussion
Exceptional Circumstances
The Act does not define what may amount to exceptional circumstances. It is well established that, ‘in order to be exceptional, the circumstances relied on must be such as to take the case out of the normal, so as to justify the admission of the applicant to bail’.[9] It has been observed that ‘the hurdle confronted by an applicant in establishing exceptional circumstances ‘is a high one’.[10] That having been said, it is not an impossible standard to reach.
[9]Re Sam [2017] VSC 91 [22].
[10]Armstrong v R [2013] VSC 111, citing Maloney, unreported judgment, Supreme Court of Victoria, Vincent J, 31 October 1990; see also Re Whiteside [1999] VSC 413.
It is widely accepted that exceptional circumstances may, in an appropriate case, be established through a combination of factors, including matters involving the nature of the Crown case, as well as personal factors pertaining to the applicant. [11] Frequently, matters involving the nature of the Crown case involve issues concerning the strength or weakness of the case; undue delay in bringing the matter to trial; or, unusual features of the alleged offending, or the investigation, which might either solely, or in combination, make the circumstances exceptional.[12]
[11]Re Fairest [2015] VSC 375 [17]–[18].
[12]Ibid [22].
As pointed out by Lasry J in Armstrong v R, in assessing whether exceptional circumstances have been made out:
the formulation that is most often referred to is that of Vincent J in Moloney in which his Honour observed:
A number of decisions which have been handed down by judges in this court, however, make it clear that such circumstances may exist as a result of the interaction of a variety of factors which of themselves might not be regarded as exceptional. What is ultimately of significance is that viewed as a whole, the circumstances can be regarded as exceptional to the extent that, taking into account the very serious nature of the charge to which they are applicable, the making of an order admitting the person to bail would be justified.[13]
[13]Armstrong v R [2013] VSC 111 [31].
I accept the formulation set out above.
Discussion
Strength of the prosecution case
The applicant argues that the prosecution case is weak and that this is a significant factor in favour of finding that exceptional circumstances are made out. However, I am not prepared to conclude that the case against the applicant is a weak one. It is not my role at this stage to analyse the evidence and make findings. I can only have some preliminary views.
The case against the applicant depends on evidence of identification, which can be notoriously unreliable. However, in my view, this is an issue for the magistrate hearing the matter to determine. There may well be an argument that the identification made by the complainant is compromised by suggestive circumstances in which the identification was made. I am informed there will be an application to exclude the evidence in preliminary argument. In my opinion, that is the appropriate stage in which to ventilate this issue. If admitted into evidence, there is likely to be an attack on the weight afforded to the evidence as the hearing unfolds.
Delay
The applicant has been in custody since his arrest on 12 July 2018. The matter is next listed for a special mention on 13 September 2018, with a contested hearing on 8 and 9 October 2018. Even taking into account that the fact that the applicant is a child, and having regard to the matters set out in s 3C of the Act, in all the circumstances I do not regard the delay as being of undue length, such as to be a significant factor in resolving this application.
In my opinion, the delay is not inordinate nor unusual in the applicant’s case.
Matters personal to the applicant
I have taken into account that the applicant is 16 years old, and is therefore likely to be more vulnerable to the adverse impacts of custody. Further, it is said that he is supported by his parents, who wish him to return home and re-engage with education and professional supports. However, I am less than confident that his parents will be able to adequately supervise him, given that all of the offending alleged occurred when he was said to be living at home with his mother.
I have also taken into account that the applicant has stable accommodation available to him with his mother and siblings, and that his father resides nearby. However, as I have already observed, I lack confidence that the applicant will remain at home under the supervision of his parents.
If granted bail, the applicant is able to engage with the Youth Justice Intensive Supervised Bail Support Program. It has been proposed that this would involve access to various community engagements, including support from ‘U-Turn 193 Crime Prevention Program’, and one-on-one mentoring sessions with a case-worker., However, as already observed, Youth Justice have significant reservations about supporting the applicant on bail..
The applicant has a limited proven criminal history, as detailed earlier. However, in combination with all of the outstanding allegations made against the applicant, the prior matter does assume some considerable weight.
It was submitted that due to the applicant’s age and personal circumstances, he would be unlikely to receive a custodial sentence if found guilty of the present charges. I respectfully disagree with that submission. The offence with which he is currently charged is serious, involving offending in company, and allegedly occurring when he was subject to a probation order. I must also remain mindful that the applicant is facing a series of other unresolved serious charges.
I have taken into account the matters listed under s 3B of the Act, and in particular the likely sentence should the applicant be found guilty of the offence charged. I am not convinced the time he will serve on pre-trial custody would exceed that which he would receive after a finding of guilt.
Surrounding Circumstances
In determining whether exceptional circumstances are made out, I am obliged to have regard to surrounding circumstances. Section 3AAA(a)–(d) are of particular relevance to this assessment. Sub-section (d) obliges me to take into account the extent to which the applicant has complied with any earlier grant of bail. While acknowledging the allegations are unproven, the bail history of the applicant suggests that he has defied court bail orders on multiple occasions this year. The extent of this allegation gives me little confidence that the applicant would comply with a bail order from this Court.
Unacceptable risk
Further, I am not of the opinion that stringent bail conditions would alleviate the risk that the applicant would offend whilst on bail and be a danger to members of the community. I regard the applicant as an unacceptable risk of further offending.
Conclusion
As a result of all the matters I have taken into account, I am not satisfied that the applicant has established exceptional circumstances such that he should be granted bail.
---
37
4
0