Re DM
[2021] VSC 631
•30 September 2021
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2021 0240
| IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) |
| -and- |
| IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by DM |
---
JUDGE: | LASRY J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 27 September 2021 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 30 September 2021 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Re DM |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2021] VSC 631 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW — Application for bail — Charges of trafficking a drug of dependence, possessing a drug of dependence, committing an indictable offence on bail and dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime — Alleged offending occurred while applicant on bail for other matters — Strength of the prosecution case — Prospective treatment and bail support services — Surety — Potential for time remanded in custody to exceed sentence if bail not granted — Exceptional circumstances established — Unacceptable risk not demonstrated — Bail granted with conditions — Bail Act 1977 (Vic) s 1B, s 3AAA, s 4AA, s 4A, s 4D, s 4E, s 5AAAA — Cases cited: Re KE [2021] VSC 175; Re Roberts [2020] VSC 793; Roberts v The Queen [2021] VSCA 28; Re Shea [2021] VSC 207.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant | Mr William Blake | Sarah Pratt & Associates |
| For the Respondent | Mr Nathan Watt | Victoria Police |
HIS HONOUR:
This is an application for bail by DM (the ‘applicant’). He has been on remand since his arrest on 25 April 2021. He was charged on 26 April 2021 by the informant Constable Sean Alexander (the ‘informant Alexander matter’) with:
(a) trafficking a drug of dependence (amphetamine);[1]
[1]Contrary to s 71AC of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic).
(b) possessing a drug of dependence (two charges: amphetamine and cannabis);[2]
(c) committing an indictable offence whilst on bail;[3] and
(d) dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime.[4]
[2]Contrary to s 73 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic).
[3]Contrary to s 30B of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).
[4]Contrary to s 195 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
The applicant has been refused bail 3 times in the Horsham Magistrates’ Court on 26 April 2021, 21 June 2021 and 1 September 2021.
The basis for the first refusal was that the applicant failed to show exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of bail. The applicant was refused bail on the second and third occasion on the basis that he posed an unacceptable risk of committing an offence while on bail, failing to surrender into custody in accordance with the conditions of bail and/or endangering the safety or welfare of any person.
On 10 September 2021, the applicant filed an application for bail in this Court.
The applicant is also the accused in two other matters. The applicant remains on bail for those matters. The applicant’s matters are next listed on 15 December 2021 at the Horsham Magistrates’ Court, with the informant Alexander matter listed for special mention and the two other outstanding bail matters listed for pleas of guilty.
The alleged offending
On 25 April 2021 at 5:10pm, the applicant was travelling in the rear passenger seat of a vehicle, along with a driver and another passenger. They were stopped by police driving along Mills Street in Horsham, apparently en route to South Australia.
The applicant appeared evasive and substance affected. As a result, police searched the vehicle and located two items in the footwell of the rear passenger seat:
(a) a bag containing $55,822.20 in cash, which the applicant confirmed belonged to him; and
(b) a spectacles case containing a clip seal bag with a small quantity of alleged methylamphetamine.
The applicant was arrested and conveyed to the Horsham Police Station, where he requested to use the toilet. While in the cell, the applicant was observed on CCTV removing items from within his clothing and depositing them into the toilet bowl.
A subsequent search located another clip seal bag with half a gram of alleged methylamphetamine in the applicant’s sock, and a larger quantity secreted in the toilet. The alleged methylamphetamine weighed 7.75 grams.
Police executed a search warrant at the applicant’s residence at [redacted]. They located ‘deal bags’ and an ‘ice pipe’ in the applicant’s bedroom, as well as a bag containing 195 grams of alleged cannabis behind the driver’s seat in a vehicle registered to the applicant.
The applicant participated in an interview with police. He acknowledged that he knew the conditions of bail to which he was subject, but otherwise made no comment.
Subsequent investigation by police identified several transactions in the applicant’s bank account between January and April 2021, which the informant described as ‘suspect’, comprising cash deposits and withdrawals from ATMs across Victoria and South Australia. Additionally, analysis of the applicant’s mobile phone allegedly shows communication consistent with drug trafficking.
Other outstanding matters for which the applicant is on bail
At the time of the alleged offending in the informant Alexander matter, the applicant was on bail in two matters. He remains on bail in both matters, which can be summarised as follows.
Informant Parkinson
On 22 September 2020, the applicant and his ex-partner (‘the complainant’) were involved in a dispute, in which the applicant allegedly punched the complainant three times to the head, resulting in a black eye and lacerations. The applicant was arrested on 24 September 2020 and bailed to an intervention order hearing. On 28 September 2020, an interim Family Violence Intervention Order (‘FVIO’) was made against the applicant with full conditions to protect the complainant and her children.
Subsequently, the applicant repeatedly contacted the complainant via telephone and social media between September and November 2020. He is further alleged to have attended her residence on 27 and 29 October 2020. On the first occasion, the applicant allegedly attempted to take the complainant’s mobile telephone from her hands as she sought to contact police, causing her to be lifted from the ground. On the second occasion, he caused his vehicle to lose traction as he drove away from the residence.
The applicant was arrested on 6 November 2020. He was charged by Acting Detective Sergeant Stephen Parkinson (first group of charges dated 6 November 2020) and First Constable Paul Winfield (second group of charges dated 18 November 2020) with a total of 37 charges including stalking, recklessly causing injury, reckless conduct endangering serious injury, aggravated assault, unlawful assault, persistent contravention of a FVIO, contravention of an interim FVIO, using a carriage service to harass, driving a vehicle causing a loss of traction and unlicenced driving (the ‘informant Parkinson matter’).
The applicant was refused bail on 9 November 2020 and remanded in custody. The applicant was granted bail on 6 January 2021 at the Horsham Magistrates’ Court with a $1,500 surety and on the following conditions:
(a) reside at [redacted];
(b) not to leave the State of Victoria;
(c) not contact witnesses for the prosecution other than the informant;
(d) to comply with Intervention Order made in Case Number [redacted];
(e) to notify the informant of the phone number of any mobile phone in the possession of the [applicant] and to produce the phone to police upon request to analyse his usage of the device; and
(f) to own, possess or use only the one mobile phone.
Informant Forbes
On 9 February 2021, the applicant was allegedly observed driving a vehicle along the Western Highway travelling at a speed of 172 km/h in a 100 km/h zone. He continued on at a speed of 161 km/h as the limit on the road decreased to 70 km/h.
Police subsequently stopped the applicant. Enquiries revealed that his driver’s licence was disqualified. Police searched the vehicle and located a taser, two grams of alleged methylamphetamine, and five mobile phones. Further, a preliminary oral fluid sample test indicated the presence of an illicit drug. A blood sample was subsequently taken from the applicant at hospital, which tested positive for the presence of methylamphetamine.
The applicant was arrested, and then charged on 10 February 2021 by Leading Senior Constable Hamish Forbes with possessing a drug of dependence, possessing a prohibited weapon without exemption or approval, driving related offences and contravening a certain conduct condition of bail by possessing five mobile phones (the ‘informant Forbes matter’).
The applicant was granted bail on the same day at the Horsham Magistrates’ Court on the following conditions:
(a) reside at [redacted];
(b) not to leave the State of Victoria;
(c) not leave place of residence between the hours of 9:00pm and 6:00am;
(d) to present at the front door of residence during curfew hours upon request of any member of Victoria Police;
(e) not to drive a motor vehicle; and
(f) not use drug of dependence within the meaning of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 without lawful authorisation under that Act.
I was told by Mr Blake of counsel, who appeared on behalf of the applicant, that both the informant Parkinson and Forbes matters have resolved to pleas of guilty to a lesser number of charges and he expects they will be finalised at a hearing on 15 December 2021 at the Horsham Magistrates Court.
The applicable legislation
Guiding principles
This application is governed by the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) (the ‘Act’). In interpreting and applying the Act, the Court is required to have regard to the guiding principles set out in s 1B(1).[5] These include, amongst other things, maximising community safety and persons affected by crime to the greatest extent possible, and taking into account the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty.
[5]Bail Act 1977 (Vic), s 1B(2).
Exceptional circumstances
The applicant is accused of Schedule 2 offences allegedly committed while on bail for Schedule 2 offences.[6] Bail must therefore be refused unless he can satisfy the Court that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail.[7] In considering whether this test has been satisfied, the Court must take into account the relevant ‘surrounding circumstances’, including, but not limited to, those set out in s 3AAA(1) of the Act.[8]
[6]Above n 5, Schedule 2 items 19 and 30; and Schedule 2 items 24(b) and 30.
[7]Ibid, ss 4AA(2)(c)(i), 4A(1)-(2).
[8]Ibid, s 4A(3).
I will return to the meaning of ‘exceptional circumstances’ in concluding this application.
Unacceptable risk
If satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail, the Court must apply the ‘unacceptable risk test’.[9] Bail must be refused if the respondent satisfies the Court that there is a risk of the kind set out in s 4E(1)(a) of the Act, and that such risk is an unacceptable risk.[10] In considering whether any relevant risk is unacceptable, the Court must again take into account the ‘surrounding circumstances’ and consider whether there are any conditions of bail that may be imposed to mitigate the risk so that it is not unacceptable.[11]
[9]Ibid, s 4D(1)(a).
[10]Ibid, ss 4E(1)-(2).
[11]Ibid, s 4E(3).
Family violence
In considering the release of the applicant on bail, the Court must make inquiries with the prosecutor as to whether there is in force a FVIO, a family violence safety notice or a recognised domestic violence order in force against the applicant.[12]
[12]Ibid, s 5AAAA(1).
The respondent confirmed at this application that the applicant is the respondent to final FVIO naming the complainant and her children as the protected persons. The order was made on 29 March 2021 at the Horsham Magistrates’ Court. It contains full conditions and is in force until 28 March 2022.
The applicant’s personal circumstances
The applicant is 43 years old. The applicant has an entrenched drug addiction.
The applicant has no Victorian criminal history. He has some criminal history in South Australia, most recently in 2011. He has convictions for driving offences and failing to comply with a bail agreement in 2007. Further, he received a custodial sentence in 2009 of 4 months’ imprisonment in respect of convictions for obtaining a financial advantage for himself from another person.
The applicant’s contentions
The applicant relied on the following matters to demonstrate exceptional circumstances that justify the grant of bail.
Nature and seriousness of the alleged offending
It was submitted that the alleged offending is unsophisticated.
Strength of the prosecution case
The prosecution case was said to have ‘elements of weakness’, in that there is limited evidence to support the allegations of trafficking. It was submitted that, notwithstanding the fact that the applicant was allegedly in possession of over twice the traffickable quantity of methylamphetamine, it is ‘not completely outside the realm of possibility’ that the drugs located were for personal use given the applicant’s entrenched addiction. Furthermore, the monies seized from the applicant were cleared by police on 9 February 2021, and returned to him. It appears that happened because, as to a substantial portion of the money, the police were satisfied that the explanation for it being in the possession of the applicant was not drug related but more likely to do with the sale of cars.
Criminal history
The applicant has a limited criminal history. Whilst it was conceded that the applicant currently faces charges of bail offending, it was noted that the applicant’s most recent bail-related prior was from 4 July 2007.
Stable accommodation
The applicant has the support of his friend, Mr Colin Steven Bell, with whom he proposes to reside at [redacted] if granted bail. Mr Bell gave evidence on the hearing of the application and confirmed that the applicant could stay with him. Mr Bell is a truck driver and is away from home doing that work for 10 hours a day. He did, however, indicate that if the applicant breached his bail conditions and he was aware of those breaches, he would inform the police.
Availability of treatment or bail support services
The applicant has available to him treatment with the Ferrari Consulting Group that will assist with his substance abuse issues. That offer is contained a two paragraph letter which gives almost no detail of how such assistance will work. No evidence was called on behalf of the applicant about this treatment.
The applicant has also been assessed by the Court Integrated Services Program (‘CISP’) and a report was provided to the Court.
Delay
As on the day of this hearing, the applicant has been on remand since his arrest on 25 April 2021 for a period 158 days.
He also relies on the time spent on remand before he was granted bail in the informant Parkinson matter (6 November 2020 to 6 January 2021), a period of a further 61 days.
The applicant intends to contest the trafficking and proceeds of crime charges. It was submitted that a contested hearing is unlikely to be listed prior to the end of this year. Further, drug analysis will be required, potentially adding further delay. It was submitted that it is possible that the applicant will spend more time on remand than would be ultimately imposed as a sentence. Whilst I accept that this is a possibility, absent any evidence of anticipated contested hearing dates at Horsham Magistrates’ Court, this submission is largely speculative.
The applicant also relies on the uncertain listing timeframes associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. I accept the pandemic has generated a significant degree of uncertainty as to when criminal matters will be heard in all jurisdictions in Victoria, although no evidence was led on the impact of the pandemic on this particular case.
COVID-19 and onerous conditions in custody
The applicant has lost his ability to have visits and has experienced periods in lockdown whilst in custody. There have also been cases of COVID-19 reported in the Victorian prison system in the last month.
I accept that the applicant, like all people in Victoria’s prison system, is currently subject to onerous custodial conditions due to the pandemic.
Surety
Mr Bell, the applicant’s friend, offers a $10,000 surety to be paid by way of bank cheque.
Unacceptable risk
The applicant proposes conditions of bail as to residence, engaging with the Ferrari Consulting Group, complying with the CISP program, a curfew, not using illicit substances, a surety, surrendering his passport and not leaving the State of Victoria to reduce any risk that exists within the meaning of the Act to an acceptable level.
The respondent’s contentions
The respondent conceded that it is open to the Court to find that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail. However, the application for bail was opposed on the basis that there is an unacceptable risk of a kind in s 4E(1)(a) of the Act. In response to the applicant’s contentions, the respondent stated as follows.
Strength of the prosecution case and delay
The respondent maintained that the prosecution case is strong.
The respondent stated that 7.75 grams of methylamphetamine was located, which is 3.75 grams above the prima facie traffickable quantity. In addition, 195 grams of cannabis was allegedly found in the applicant’s vehicle. The prosecution case also relies on the large amount of cash located, CCTV footage of the applicant secreting an item in the toilet at the police station, the ‘deal bags’ and ‘ice pipe’ located in the applicant’s bedroom, and material from his bank account and mobile phone.
Drug analysis will take priority once the matter is listed for contested hearing. Enquiries by the informant with the Forensics Services Department have confirmed drug analysis is typically completed within six weeks once a hearing date is set, however they can facilitate urgent applications within 24 hours if required.
Regarding the return of the cash to the applicant, the informant stated the monies were not thought to be proceeds of crime upon being located. Although some of the monies in the applicant’s possession appear to have been withdrawn from his account, this does not account for the totality. The subsequent location of the methylamphetamine and cannabis are submitted to be corroborating evidence.
Surety and compliance with previous grants of bail
The applicant was subject to bail with a $1,500 surety in the informant Parkinson matter, when he is alleged to have committed the offences in the informants Forbes and Alexander matters.
Further, the applicant is subject to a condition of bail in the informants Parkinson and Forbes matters not to leave Victoria. The applicant’s ex-partner reported to police that he frequently travelled to South Australia for extended periods of time. This is corroborated by the applicant’s bank transactions between February and March 2021.
View of the complainant
The informant’s report outlines that the complainant in the informant Parkinson matter expresses concern about the applicant being released on bail.
Unacceptable risk
In relation to endangering the safety or welfare of any person, the respondent relied on the nature of the applicant’s pending charges (drug trafficking, driving offences and family violence offences).
In relation to committing an offence while on bail, the respondent relied on the applicant’s prior conviction in South Australia for failing to comply with a bail agreement, his pending charges for offences against the Act, him being on his way to South Australia when arrested in the informant Alexander matter, his frequent trips to South Australia while subject to bail conditions prohibiting him from leaving Victoria, and reports to police by the individuals with whom the applicant previously resided that he was often not home during curfew hours. The respondent also relied on the applicant’s travel to South Australia and his lack of family ties to Victoria, with his mother and brother residing in South Australia, as demonstrating the risk of the applicant failing to surrender into custody in accordance with the conditions of bail.
In relation to interfering with a witness, the respondent relied on the nature of the alleged offending in the informant Parkinson matter in contravening the FVIO.
Analysis
The first issue to address is the question of exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of bail and whether they have been established. Authority makes clear that this standard is a high, though not impossible, standard to reach. The circumstances need to be unusual or, perhaps, outstanding. A week ago, in Re MJ, I said:[13]
[13][2021] VSC 592 [19]-[23] (Lasry J).
19The phrase ‘exceptional circumstances’ is not defined in the Act. It has, however, been the subject of voluminous judicial commentary over the years that has been broadly consistent, though some disagreements still lurk in the detail. More recently, in Re KE, Kaye JA, sitting as a member of the Trial Division of this Court, said:[14]
[14][2021] VSC 175, [50] (Kaye JA).
In essence, in order to fulfil that requirement, the circumstances relied on by the applicant must be such as to take the case out of the ordinary. That is, 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 considered exceptional.
20Respectfully, his Honour’s remarks demonstrate the difficulty of giving meaning to the phrase in the absence of context. In Re Roberts [2020] VSC 793, Beach JA, also sitting as a member of the Trial Division, said:[15]
[15][2020] VSC 793, [20] (Beach JA).
To establish that the circumstances of the applicant’s case are, in a general sense, ‘exceptional’ is not sufficient, there must be exceptional circumstances that justify the grant of bail.
21In the subsequent appeal by Roberts against a refusal of his application for bail in Roberts v The Queen, their Honours Maxwell P, Niall and Emerton JJA, after some analysis of the cases, discussed a number of factors commonly relied upon to amount to the threshold of exceptional circumstances, and concluded:[16]
[16][2021] VSCA 28, [47]-[48] (Maxwell P, Niall and Emerton JJA).
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.
22Of course, the need for mitigation of future injustice will often arise from past events but in any event there are degrees of injustice. For example, there is some injustice in any delay of criminal litigation but in the absence of unlimited resources that is an inevitable aspect of the criminal justice system. As the level of delay increases, so the injustice that flows from it magnifies. A significant delay of the order of three years may be strongly argued to be, of itself, an exceptional circumstance. As Incerti J said in Re Shea:[17]
In my view, despite the gravity of the alleged offending and sentence likely to be imposed if the applicant were convicted, it is strongly arguable that a two and a half year delay, let alone three year delay, is one that, in and of itself, amounts to exceptional circumstances justifying bail. As Lasry J said in Re Jiang, ‘a period of pre-trial custody of three years will demonstrate exceptional circumstances in almost every case’.
23If a significant delay in a given case is coupled with uncertainty (as is now happening because of the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the case backlog in the County Court) so that the remand of a prisoner takes on the appearance of an indefinite and unjust pre-trial detention, it is not difficult to conclude, possibly in combination with other factors, that such circumstances are exceptional. However it will always be the particular circumstances of the given case that are important, and there are no generalised rules as to what are and what are not exceptional circumstances. All one can do is endeavour to understand and apply the preceding authorities and apply s 3AAA of the Act.
[17][2021] VSC 207, [58] (Incerti J).
So, applying the various factors spelt out in s 3AAA, I have come to the following conclusions.
The offences are serious enough in relation to drug trafficking, though they can be dealt with summarily. There does seem to be a question in relation to the charge concerning the proceeds of crime. Apart from that charge, in my opinion the prosecution case against the applicant is strong.
The applicant has a limited criminal history but his recent compliance with bail, and court orders generally, is poor. These offences are alleged to have been committed after two earlier grants of bail in relation to the informant Parkinson and Forbes matters. There is a FVIO which, as the respondent asserts, was breached the day after it was granted.
I have outlined the personal circumstances of the applicant. There is the potential availability of treatment and bail support services but it is all prospective and poorly defined. There is no tangible plan as to how the applicant’s treatment would proceed, particularly given the current lockdown restrictions. Both “reports” were unsatisfactory.
However, the applicant has stable accommodation available with his friend Mr Bell. In addition, Mr Bell has offered a $10,000 surety. As I observed in argument, I did not find Mr Bell a particularly compelling witness. He did not display much in the way of commitment to keeping some level of supervision of the applicant and, indeed, his work commitments would prevent that from happening during daylight hours. However, I accept that Mr Bell is willing to put forward a significant sum of money, much more than the amount of the applicant’s previous surety in the grant of bail for the informant Parkinson matter. In the context of this case, I regard the proposed surety as a particularly relevant matter in considering whether the applicant has discharged the burden of establishing exceptional circumstances that justify the grant of bail.
Also, this is a case where an applicant appears before the Court in circumstances where, if he is not granted bail, there is a risk he may spend more time remanded in custody than he would be sentenced to upon a finding of guilt. It is unknown when a contested hearing for this matter would be likely to occur. Further, given the uncertainty surrounding the proceeds of crime charge, the charges for which the applicant would be sentenced are by no means clear. Having regard to the presumption of innocence articulated in s 1B of the Act, these are matters of some significance.
I am of the view that the proposed surety of $10,000 and the potential that the applicant will spend more time remanded in custody than he would be sentenced to upon a finding of guilt if bail were not granted are sufficient to establish exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of bail in the circumstances of this case. I note that the case for the applicant is far from overwhelming. Exceptional circumstances have been established by only the slightest of margins.
The $10,000 surety also significantly ameliorates risk. I am satisfied that the proposed surety and appropriately robust conditions of bail, including a judicial monitoring condition, sufficiently reduce the risk to an acceptable level.
Conclusion
Accordingly, I will grant bail and make the following orders:
1.The said DM (‘the applicant’) be admitted to bail upon his own undertaking with a surety in the amount of $10,000 by Colin Steven Bell and with the following conditions:
(a)The applicant reside at [redacted] in the State of Victoria (‘place of residence’);
(b)The applicant not leave his place of residence between the hours of 9:00 pm and 6:00 am (‘curfew hours’);
(c)The applicant present at the front door of his residence during curfew hours upon the reasonable request of the informant Constable Sean Alexander or his nominee, being an authorised member of Victoria Police;
(d)The applicant report to the Officer in Charge of Horsham Police Station, or their nominee, every Monday between the hours of 9:00 am and 6:00 pm;
(e)The applicant not use or possess any narcotic substance as defined by the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic);
(f)The applicant engage in treatment with Ferrari Consulting Group;
(g)The applicant engage in treatment and comply with all lawful directions of the Court Integrated Services Program;
(h)The applicant not, whether directly or indirectly, contact or associate with any witness for the prosecution other than the informant;
(i)The applicant comply with all current Family Violence Intervention Orders in which he is the respondent;
(j)The applicant is not to possess or use more than one mobile phone;
(k)The applicant is to provide the informant or his nominee with the phone number, IMEI number and any password or PIN of the mobile phone he possess or uses within 24 hours of first having access to that phone and notify the informant or his nominee of any change of password or PIN of that mobile phone within 24 hours of that change;
(l)The applicant is to produce the mobile phone he possess or uses for inspection upon the request of the informant or his nominee;
(m)The applicant is to provide any password or PIN for the mobile phone he possess or uses upon the request of the informant or his nominee;
(n)The applicant not drive a motor vehicle;
(o)The applicant not leave the State of Victoria;
(p)The applicant not attend any points of international departure;
(q)The applicant surrender any current passport or travel document in his possession or control to the informant or his nominee within 24 hours of being released on bail;
(r)The applicant is not to apply for any such passport or travel document or cause, whether directly or indirectly, any other person to do so on his behalf; and
(s)The applicant appear:
(i)At this Court, for the purpose of judicial monitoring, on Monday 1 November 2021 at 9:30 am;
(ii)At the Magistrates’ Court at Horsham on Wednesday 15 December 2021 at 9:30 am;
and thereafter as directed by each Court.
0