Re JF
[2020] VSC 250
•4 May 2020
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S CR 2020 0079
| IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 |
| and |
| IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by JF |
---
JUDGE: | TINNEY J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATES OF HEARING: | 30 April and 1 May 2020 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 4 May 2020 |
DATE OF REASONS | 6 May 2020 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Re JF |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2020] VSC 250 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Reckless conduct endangering life, thefts of motor vehicles, robberies of soft targets – Offences allegedly committed in five episodes spanning one month – Applicant 16 years old with no criminal history – Most recent offending committed only three days after granted bail on stringent conditions including curfew – First time in custody – Youth Justice still supportive – Strong family support and stable home – Offending unlikely to attract custodial sentence – Educational opportunities restricted in youth justice centre because of COVID-19 – Combination of matters relied upon – Exceptional circumstances established – Stringent conditions could ameliorate risk so as not to be unacceptable – Bail granted – Bail Act 1977 ss 1B, 3AAA, 3B, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant | Mr M Reardon | Victoria Legal Aid |
| For the Respondent | Mr S Payne | Victoria Police, Legal Services Branch |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
The applicant, a child of 16 years of age, applies for bail in respect of two groups of charges laid by two separate informants. There are three earlier groups of charges in respect of which bail was previously granted or charges had not yet formally been laid at the time of his remand. The overall offending comprises allegations arising from five separate occasions which could be said to amount to a spree of offending between 15 March 2020 and 18 April 2020. Until the current matters, the applicant has never been in any trouble with the law.
The charges the subject of the current application are:
Senior Constable Macdonald:
· Theft of a motor vehicle
· Reckless conduct endangering life
· Failing to stop a vehicle on request
· Committing an indictable offence whilst on bail
· Unlicensed driving
Senior Constable Sheridan:
· Theft of a motor vehicle
· Attempted theft of a motor vehicle
· Possess cannabis
· Theft
· Committing an indictable offence whilst on bail
It is common ground between the parties that bail must be refused unless the applicant can satisfy the Court that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail. This is because the applicant is charged with Schedule 2 offences alleged to have been committed while he was on bail for Schedule 2 offences.
Procedural history
Bail was refused on 20 April 2020 in the Dandenong Children’s Court in the informant Sheridan matter. On that same day, bail in the informant Macdonald matter (which had been granted five days earlier) was revoked. The applicant remains on bail and/or summons for the remaining outstanding matters.
The informants Macdonald and Sheridan matters are next listed on 15 May 2020 in Dandenong Children’s Court for further mention. There are various other listing dates in the matters concerning the other informants whose matters I will soon summarise.
Alleged offending
Informant Macdonald
Sometime prior to 7.00 am on 30 March 2020, two motor vehicles were stolen from a home in Cranbourne North. The first vehicle, a Mitsubishi Outlander valued at $8,000, was located abandoned in Clyde North that same day.
At 2.32 am on 15 April 2020, the police Air Wing observed the second vehicle, a Subaru Forester valued at $15,000, travelling erratically at high speed on Princes Highway in Clayton. The vehicle stopped briefly in a residential street in Mulgrave, at which point the applicant allegedly emerged from the rear passenger door and took over the position as driver. The vehicle proceeded to travel at high-speed (in excess of 130 km/h) through Springvale, with police attempts at interception ignored.
At 3.00am, the vehicle continued through Keysborough and avoided strategically placed ‘stop sticks’ by travelling on the wrong side of the road. The vehicle pulled over shortly afterwards, at which time it is alleged that the applicant and three others fled from the vehicle in an attempt to avoid apprehension.
The applicant and two co-accused were apprehended by police shortly afterwards and transported to Springvale Police Station for interview.
A search of the stolen vehicle located a large kitchen knife in the front passenger door well and a phone belonging to the applicant under the driver’s seat.
The applicant took part in a ‘no comment’ interview and was refused bail by police. He applied for bail in Dandenong Children’s Court later that same day, and was granted bail by Mr Vandersteen subject to strict conditions, including a curfew between 7.00pm and 6.00am and compliance with the directions of the Chief Medical Officer.
On 20 April 2020, the applicant’s bail was revoked in Dandenong Children’s Court in the context of his being refused bail for further charges where the informant is Sheridan (detailed below).
Informant Sheridan
Sometime between 10.00pm on 13 April 2020 and 6.30am on 14 April 2020, two motor vehicles, amongst other things, were stolen from a home in Cranbourne North. These thefts were allegedly carried out by co-offenders of the applicant.
At midnight on 18 April 2020, three days after Mr Vandersteen admitted him to bail, with conditions including a curfew, the applicant was picked up from his home in Hampton Park in one of the stolen vehicles by a number of co-offenders.
At 2.00 am, it is alleged that the applicant and a co-offender stole a pair of Adidas runners and six boxes of wine from an unlocked vehicle in Kooyong. At 4.30 am, it is alleged that they attempted to steal a motor vehicle from a driveway in Keysborough, before being interrupted and fleeing back to the stolen vehicle.
Police who had observed this incident proceeded to follow the applicant and co-accused in an unmarked police vehicle. The stolen vehicle was observed to travel generally within the speed limit although it did proceed through one red traffic control signal. It was ultimately intercepted in Bonbeach, at which time the applicant and two co-offenders were arrested in the vehicle and another co-offender absconded on foot. The incident was captured on police ‘dash cam’ footage and body worn cameras.
A search of the stolen vehicle located a pair of Adidas runners, six boxes of wine, an iPad and a small amount of cannabis.
The applicant was transported to Moorabbin Police Station and interviewed in the presence of his mother. He stated that he did not know the vehicle he was travelling in to be stolen and denied attempting to steal a vehicle in Keysborough earlier that morning. He admitted to smoking cannabis with the co-offenders.
At the time of his arrest, the applicant was in breach of both the curfew contained in his bail conditions in the informant Macdonald matter and COVID-19 restrictions relating to essential movement and activity.
The applicant was remanded in custody where he has remained. He has now been in custody for 14 days, up to and including yesterday. It is his first period of time spent in a Youth Justice Centre.
Other outstanding matters
Informant Grebenaravic
15 March 2020. The applicant allegedly committed offences of robbery (2), attempted theft and assault at Dandenong Plaza and Narre Warren Railway Station. He was charged on that day and released on bail.
Informant Robertson
19 March 2020. The applicant allegedly committed offences of robbery (3), theft, assault and committing an indictable offence whilst on bail at Frankston Pier. He was not arrested or charged on this day.
Informant Earle
6 April 2020. The applicant allegedly committed offences of theft and unlawful assault (2) at a Thirsty Camel Bottle Shop. He was arrested and charged, and released on police bail.
The applicant was therefore on two separate grants of bail at the time of the McDonald offending, and on three separate grants of bail at the time of the Sheridan offending.
The law
Section 1B of the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’) sets out the guiding principles of the legislation, which include maximising community safety, and taking account of the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty. Section 4 of the Act makes plain the fact that there is generally to be a presumption in favour of the granting of bail. In a number of situations set out in the Act, however, that presumption is displaced by the requirement that the applicant establish the existence of either exceptional circumstances or a compelling reason that would justify a grant of bail.
Section 4AA(2) dictates that the exceptional circumstances test applies in this case. Pursuant to s 4A(1A) of the Act, the Court must refuse bail unless ‘satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail’.
The applicant bears the burden of satisfying the Court as to the existence of exceptional circumstances. In considering whether exceptional circumstances exist, the Court is required to take into account the surrounding circumstances as outlined in the non-exhaustive list of matters in s 3AAA of the Act.
If satisfied of the existence of exceptional circumstances, the Court is required to move to step 2 of the bail process, the unacceptable risk test. Section 4E(1) of the Act requires the Court to refuse bail if satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk that, if released on bail, the applicant would:
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.
The respondent bears the burden of proof in respect of the unacceptable risk test. In considering the test, again, the Court is required to take into account the surrounding circumstances pursuant to s 3AAA. The Court is also required to consider whether there are any conditions of bail that may be imposed to mitigate the risk so that it is not an unacceptable one.
In this case, because the applicant is a child, s 3B(1) has application. This provision provides that in such a case, the Court must take into account a number of considerations, including the need to consider all other options before remanding the child in custody, the need to strengthen and preserve the relationship between the child and his family, the desirability of allowing the living arrangement of the child to continue without interruption, the desirability of allowing the education of the child to continue without interruption, and the likely sentence should the child be found guilty. Section 3B(2) provides that in making a determination under the Act, the Court may take into account any recommendation contained in a report provided by a bail support service.
Exceptional circumstances
The meaning of exceptional circumstances has been considered in a number of decisions of this Court. Kaye J (as he then was) in DPP v Muhaidat[1] stated the relevant principles as follows:
Effectively, the applicant has to establish circumstances right out of the ordinary. They have to be exceptional to the ordinary circumstances which would otherwise entitle the applicant to bail.[2]
[1][2004] VSC 17.
[2]Ibid [13]; See also Re Sipser [2019] VSC 362 [43] and Re Reker [2019] VSC 81 [39].
In the context of an application for a bail by a child, Forrest J in Re JO[3] noted:
Whilst the burden of demonstrating ‘exceptional circumstances’ is, as I have said, a stringent one, the age of the applicant weighs heavily in his favour. Children are rightly afforded a special status by the Act and any assessment of ‘exceptional circumstances’ in the case of a child must be viewed through the prism of s 3B(1). In the case of an adult, a combination of circumstances may fall short of constituting exceptional circumstances, while the same combination when considered in the case of a child may achieve a wholly different outcome. The suite of considerations enumerated in s 3B(1) make the evaluation of any determination under this Act, including the ‘exceptional circumstances’ test, a different exercise in the case of a child.[4]
[3][2018] VSC 438.
[4]Ibid [14].
This passage has been cited with approval in a number of the decisions of this Court.
Personal history
The applicant is a 16-year-old child who recently moved from Brisbane to Melbourne with his family. He has no criminal history at all. He has one older brother and three younger siblings, the youngest of them born in September last year. The older brother is a university student in Queensland but with the shutdown of tertiary institutions, he has been staying with the family in Melbourne for some months. The applicant is a talented rugby league player who has represented Victoria at under-age level. His interest in furthering his rugby league prospects was the reason why the family lived for a time in Queensland.
The applicant is very strongly supported by his parents, both of whom were present in Court on the two days of the application. His father JF gave evidence before me, in which his love and support for his son were clear. He and his wife are very troubled and surprised by the applicant’s behaviour and are desirous of him returning to the family home under their supervision. Neither the applicant’s parents nor his siblings have any history with the criminal justice system. The applicant has previously been diagnosed with depression and anxiety, but there was no evidence placed before the Court in support of or elaboration upon that.
Criminal record
The applicant has no criminal history.
Youth Justice Report
A favourable report from Ms Toni Cooling from Youth Justice dated 23 April 2020 recommended that the applicant be considered for Youth Justice Supervised Bail in spite of his previous failings. I need not summarise the report in any detail. Suffice to say, the writer noted the strong family support of the applicant, his positive behaviour whilst incarcerated, and his current willingness to reengage with school, to attend counselling to address his mental health issues, and to adhere to bail conditions. Ms Cooling made it clear in the report that should compliance issues arise, Youth Justice would initiate a warning process and contact Victoria Police via email and telephone.
Evidence on the application
As mentioned earlier, the father of the applicant gave evidence during the application. Further evidence was given by Toni Cooling, confirming that the applicant has been assessed as suitable for Youth Justice Supervised Bail. Ms Cooling first met the applicant on 15 April 2020, and spoke of some notable changes in his attitude since that time.
Ms Cooling indicated that staff at the Parkville Youth Justice Centre where the applicant has been staying have reported that he has been following directions and has been very respectful in his interactions with both staff and other young people at the centre. He is fearful of being assaulted although no particular negative interactions have been reported.
Ms Cooling indicated some changes in attitude of the applicant since his incarceration, in that he has now acknowledged that he does have mental health issues which need attention and as has expressed a willingness to engage in counselling. Ms Cooling considered this to be a positive change seemingly brought about by the time the applicant has been in custody.
In respect of the current state of affairs at Parkville, there are no formal educational or vocational programs available due to restrictions introduced in response to COVID-19. Ms Cooling indicated that the applicant has expressed a willingness to return to home schooling upon his release. He has expressed a preference to have the camera switched off at his end, which his school is apparently prepared to accept, initially at least.
Ms Cooling spoke of the strong family support available to the applicant, which sets him apart from many of her clients.
When asked, in light of the previous resistance of the applicant to engaging in assistance, whether she had confidence that he would now comply with bail, Ms Cooling said that he at least had a chance of doing so.
Applicant’s contentions
Mr Reardon for the applicant relied on a combination of six main factors in proof of a compelling reason in this case. They were the following:
a) His young age. He is not yet 17 years old, and being a child, is in a special position where bail is concerned by virtue of the specific provisions in the Act focussing on that matter.
b) The lack of any prior convictions or contact with the criminal justice system. This is a very significant matter and shows that the recent run of alleged offending, occupying a limited period of time, can be seen as contrary to his proven good character in the past.
c) The availability of stable accommodation with his family, and the high level of support that his family are willing and able to provide.
d) The availability of supervision from Youth Justice in respect of a grant of bail.
e) The likelihood, if not the inevitability, that any pre-sentence detention will exceed the sentence likely to be imposed in this case. On that score, Mr Reardon submitted that in light of the sentencing principles which govern Children’s Court proceedings, the applicant will not receive a period of detention in a youth justice centre (‘YJC’). Although it is likely that the matters will be able to be resolved as a plea of guilty to negotiated charges, and this might be able to be achieved relatively promptly, the applicant would necessarily spend time on remand that cannot be justified in the circumstances. Bail is not a form of preventative detention to be imposed without regard to the sentence likely to be ultimately imposed. Mr Reardon referred to decisions of Beach JA in Re Johnstone (No. 2) and Kaye JA in Re JB[5] on the question of the significance of the consideration of the likely period of remand exceeding the likely sentence. Whilst such a consideration would not be determinative of bail, it would be an extreme result in the case of a child offender to contemplate his being held on remand when the end result would not be a period of incarceration.
f) The onerous conditions of remand, in light of the COVID-19 considerations and the mental health issues of the applicant. Mr Reardon focussed on the cessation of visits, which is particularly relevant in light of the consideration in s 3B(1)(b) and (c) of the Act, and the reduction in educational opportunities, which is relevant in light of s 3B(1)(d). Mr Reardon referred to a decision of Hollingworth J of Re JK.[6]
[5][2020] VSC 184.
[6][2020] VSC 160.
In addition, whilst he did not include it amongst his main points, Mr Reardon raised the issue of the strength of the prosecution case. He did not assert that the case was weak on all charges, but pointed to what he submitted were some potential difficulties on the reckless conduct charge and some of the other charges.
Mr Reardon relied on the above and other matters contained in the affidavit in support as sufficient to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. He relied on many of the same matters when the issue of unacceptable risk was considered.
On that score, Mr Reardon in his submissions particularly highlighted the fact that whilst the applicant’s life over the last two months had shown a ‘concerning trajectory’, he is not a child from a disadvantaged background who is going to continue to be exposed to negative influences. He has strong family and other supports available to him, and in recent times, has shown an openness to dealing with the issues which may be at the heart of his spree of offending.
The time he has spent in custody since his remand is a critical matter to consider where unacceptable risk is concerned. It cannot be lost on him that should he be given another chance of bail and fail to abide by the conditions, a period of custody in the current onerous conditions of Parkville is what awaits him. This should serve as a strong incentive to abide by conditions of bail.
Respondent’s contentions
The respondent, for whom Mr Payne appeared on the application, conceded that it would be open for the Court to find that exceptional circumstances exist as a result of the combination of factors relied upon. However, bail was opposed on the basis that the applicant is an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of any person and committing an offence while on bail.
(a) Endangering the safety and welfare of any person. The respondent referred to the applicant’s alleged spree of offending contained in five briefs of evidence between 15 March and 20 April 2020, including violent assaults against members of the public and dangerous driving which also endangered the public, as indicative of the risks that the applicant would pose to the public if he were to be released on bail.
(b) Committing an offence while on bail. The respondent noted that the alleged offending in the informants Sheridan, Macdonald, Earle and Robertson matters all occurred while the applicant was on bail in the informant Grebenarevic matter.
Referring to the s 3AAA matters, the respondent submitted that the offending in the main is inherently serious, with some of the instances of the offences being serious examples of such crimes. In particular, the reckless conduct charge arising from the driving of a motor vehicle is of grave concern, especially in light of recent tragic events in Victoria. The applicant is 16 years old and not qualified to drive at all.
Mr Payne disputed the attack by Mr Reardon upon the strength of the prosecution case on the reckless conduct charge. On that charge and the bulk of the charges, the prosecution case is strong.
Although the applicant has no criminal history, the fact that he was on three separate grants of bail at the time of the Sheridan matters is a significant indicator of the applicant’s unwillingness to abide by bail.
Mr Payne conceded that in light of the applicant’s age, complete lack of criminal history and the sentencing regime that applies in the Children’s Court, it is unlikely he would receive a period of detention in a YJC should he be found guilty of the serious charges he faces.
Mr Payne acknowledged the relevance of the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic in a number of respects, with the delay[7] in proceedings, the cessation of visits, the restriction of educational opportunities, and the risk of transmission inside the facility, all being matters of note. Time on remand is currently more onerous than would usually be the case.
[7]In respect of delay, Mr Payne submitted that the charges the subject of the bail application should be able to proceed expeditiously in the Children’s Court in spite of the COVID-19 situation.
None the less, Mr Payne submitted that the overall effect of the COVID-19 pandemic is merely one of the many surrounding circumstances relevant to a consideration of the exceptional circumstances test, and the unacceptable risk test. The cases do not stand for the proposition that the pandemic will itself amount to exceptional circumstances, or render any risk an acceptable one.
Mr Payne acknowledged that a decision to oppose bail in the case of 16 year old applicant is not a position taken lightly by the respondent.
Mr Payne submitted that nothing has changed since the applicant was placed on bail on very strict conditions on 15 April 2020. The conditions proposed now are exactly the same as those in place when the applicant failed so conspicuously and rapidly to abide by the conditions of the previous bail. Specifically, he had the supervision of Youth Justice in place when he shunned the family and other supports on offer to him, the wishes of his parents, the efforts that were being made to attend to his mental health needs, and the opportunity to pursue his education. He has a history of such conduct in recent times and the Court can have little confidence that anything has changed and that he will not again breach bail if given the opportunity.
In his case, as brought out in the evidence of Ms Cooling, there is the concern of gang association. Maximising the safety of the community and persons affected by crime to the greatest extent possible is the first matter to be considered under s 1B of the Act. Gangs of youths offending in the nature alleged here cause significant fear to the community.
The offending is very troubling, with a lot of it packed into a very short period of time.
Mr Payne pointed out that the restrictions on services within Parkville are mirrored by restrictions on services in the community, including from Youth Justice. Supports from that organisation at the moment are largely by telephone, an unsatisfactory situation.
All-in-all, Mr Payne submitted that all of the strict controls imposed upon the applicant in the past failed to ensure his compliance with bail. There is simply no reason to suppose that that position has changed in any way.
Analysis
The seriousness of the alleged offending, the repetitive nature of it in spite of multiple undertakings of bail, the strength of the case against the applicant, and a number of other matters, would dictate that were it not for the young age of the applicant, a grant of bail would be highly improbable.
In determining whether or not exceptional circumstances exist which would justify a grant of bail in this case, I have considered all of the surrounding circumstances as I am required to do, using the considerations in s 3AAA as a guide, albeit, not an end point.
A number of the circumstances, including the seriousness of the offending, the apparent strength of the prosecution case, and the notable fact of the applicant having allegedly offended in serious fashion a mere three days after having been released on stringent conditions of bail, would speak strongly against exceptional circumstances being established here.
On the other hand, many facts, including, centrally, the young age of the applicant, his lack of prior convictions, his previous good history at school, his strong family background, the likelihood that he would not receive a custodial sentence if found guilty of the charges he faces, and the current onerous conditions of remand owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, point in the other direction.
As indicated already, Ms Cooling from Youth Justice, having had an involvement with the applicant back at the time he was released on the previous grant of bail, and in full knowledge of the fact that the applicant failed to take advantage of the opportunity extended to him, none the less has assessed him again and recommended that he be considered for the Youth Justice Supervised Bail program.
Taking into account all of the circumstances, including, importantly, the fact that the respondent has conceded that it would be open to the Court to be so satisfied, I am satisfied of the existence of exceptional circumstances in this case.
Turning to the second step of the test, I have given very anxious consideration to the question of whether the respondent has discharged the onus of proving that there is an unacceptable risk in this case of the applicant endangering the safety or welfare of the public, and of committing offences while on bail. That there is a significant risk is obvious. Whether that risk is unacceptable or not was the battle ground in this application.
I have real concerns that the applicant may commit further offences if released on bail, and that were he to do so, the community may be endangered. In the month leading up to his remand, seemingly out of the blue, in light of his previous behaviour, he showed a disturbing inclination to engage in significant offending in the company of others which exposed his victims and the community at large to the risk of serious harm. This behaviour does not sit comfortably with his previous status as a well-behaved child from a good family with a promising future before him. Furthermore, no material has been placed before the Court which explains the apparent marked change in his behaviour over that period. The risk of his continuing down this worrying path is very real to my mind.
I consider that Mr Payne has mounted a powerful argument in support of the contention that the risk posed by the applicant is unacceptable, in light of his flagrant disregard of the obligations imposed upon him by the previous grant of bail, and the fact that the stringent conditions now being urged upon me for consideration are effectively the same as those he so clearly and promptly breached. To my mind, the position taken by the respondent in this application was both understandable and appropriate.
However, in the end, it has weighed heavily on my mind, in considering the unacceptable risk test, that the applicant may be at a critical juncture in his life. He is 16 years old with what could be an exciting and fulfilling life in front of him. A reasonable education and the opportunities that that may present are still things within his grasp. He has a promising sporting career that still beckons him, but only if he can bring his problematic behaviour promptly to an end. He has a stable and supportive and forgiving family behind him. He has not been in trouble in the past. He has the prospect of turning things quickly around. The law would require that he be given every opportunity to do so.
In considering the unacceptable risk test, to adapt the words of Forrest JA in Re JO, I am required to carry out my assessment through the prism of s 3B(1) of the Act.
With considerable hesitation, and taking account of all of the circumstances, I have concluded that there are stringent conditions of bail which will be such as to ameliorate the risk posed by the applicant to an acceptable one.
Accordingly, I will grant bail on the following conditions:
i. The applicant is to attend Dandenong Children’s Court on 15 May 2020 and then surrender himself, and must not depart without the leave of the court and, if leave is given, must return at the time specified by the court and again surrender himself into custody.
ii. The applicant is to reside at [address redacted] (‘the premises’).
iii. The applicant is to remain and be present at the premises between the hours of 8.00pm and 7.00am each day (‘the curfew hours’) for the duration of the bail, unless in the company of one or both of his parents, or an adult approved by Youth Justice.
iv. The applicant is to present himself at the front door of the premises during the curfew hours if and when called upon to do so by a member of Victoria Police or an officer of Youth Justice.
v. The applicant is to comply with the directions of the Chief Health Officer for Victoria in respect of the COVID-19 pandemic.
vi. The applicant is to report to Youth Justice within two working days after this order comes into force.
vii. The applicant is to attend the Youth Justice Supervised Bail Program and
· Comply with all lawful directions of any officer of Youth Justice;
· Attend all appointments as directed by any officer of Youth Justice.
viii. The applicant is to engage in mental health assessment and treatment as directed by Youth Justice.
ix. The applicant is to engage in education at Narre Warren P-12 School as directed by Youth Justice and according to the procedures and requirements of the school from time to time.
x. The applicant must not contact, directly or indirectly, or in any way associate with any co-accused in respect of any of the charges he faces.
xi. The applicant must not associate with any known member of the gang known as ‘God’s Army’.
xii. The applicant must not contact, directly or indirectly, any witness for the prosecution except any one of the informants.