Re KA
[2022] VSC 277
•26 May 2022
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2022 0130
| IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 | |
| and | |
| IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by KA | Defendant |
---
JUDGE: | BEACH JA |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 26 May 2022 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 26 May 2022 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Re KA |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VSC 277 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Thirteen year old child applicant charged with multiple serious offences – Applicant accused of Schedule 2 offence while on bail for a Schedule 2 offence – Requirement to show exceptional circumstances – Whether exceptional circumstances made out – Whether an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of any person, or committing an offence while on bail or failing to surrender into custody in accordance with conditions of bail – Exceptional circumstances made out – Real and significant risk of committing further offences established – Risk not shown to be unacceptable in the circumstances – Judicial monitoring – Bail granted on stringent conditions – Bail Act 1977, ss 3AAA, 3B, 4AA, 4A and 4E.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant | Ms A Wong | Victoria Legal Aid |
| For the Respondent | Mr P Collins | Legal Practice Group Victoria Police |
HIS HONOUR:
The applicant is a 13 year old child[1] who has no prior convictions. He currently faces 49 charges, laid by eight informants, for offences alleged to have occurred between 5 December 2021 and 10 March 2022, as follows:
[1]He turns 14 on 1 June 2022.
(1)On 22 December 2021, Senior Constable Christopher Hodgens charged the applicant with nine offences alleged to have occurred on 21 and 22 December 2021. These offences included robbery, theft and unlawful assault.
(2)On 22 December 2021, Senior Constable Sherry Cahir charged the applicant with three offences, alleged to have occurred on 22 December 2021. The offences were theft, possessing a drug of dependence and stating a false name.
(3)On 14 January 2022, Senior Constable Warren Frost charged the applicant with eight offences, alleged to have occurred between 4 and 14 January 2022. These offences included robbery, kidnapping, false imprisonment, unlawful assault, committing an indictable offence while on bail, failing to comply with a police direction and theft of a motor vehicle.
(4)On 4 March 2022, Senior Constable Troy Henderson charged the applicant with two offences, alleged to have occurred on 5 December 2021. The offences were robbery and assault in company.
(5)On 10 March 2022, Senior Constable Chris Fidler charged the applicant with nine offences, alleged to have occurred on 7 January 2022. The offences were aggravated carjacking – cause injury to a person, armed robbery, violent disorder, affray, intentionally cause injury, unlawful assault, assault in company, unlawful assault by kicking and committing an indictable offence while on bail.
(6)On 10 March 2022, Detective Senior Constable Charlie Love charged the applicant with four offences, alleged to have occurred on 3 March 2022. The offences were theft of a motor vehicle, theft, committing an indictable offence while on bail and unlicensed driving.
(7)On 10 March 2022, Detective Senior Constable Rebecca Caffrey charged the applicant with seven offences, alleged to have occurred on 9 and 10 March 2022. These offences included armed robbery, reckless conduct endangering life, dangerous driving, driving a motor vehicle when directed to stop, unlicensed driving and committing an indictable offence while on bail.
(8)On 22 March 2022, Constable Sara Drain charged the applicant with seven offences, alleged to have occurred on 19 and 20 December 2021. These offences included criminal damage, wilful damage, theft and possessing a drug of dependence.
Additionally, the applicant is on summons for nine further charges alleged to have been committed in December 2021. These charges include theft, handling stolen goods, going equipped to steal, and dealing with the proceeds of crime. With the exception of the Henderson and Drain charges which are returnable on 10 June 2022, all of the applicant’s outstanding charges are next returnable in the Children’s Court on 27 July 2022.
The applicant is currently on remand, at the Parkville Youth Justice Centre, in relation to all of the charges referred to in para 1 above. He has been on remand since 10 March 2022. Between 14 January and 25 February 2022, he was also on remand. An application for bail, made in the Children’s Court, was refused on 10 March 2022. A subsequent application was refused in the same court on 2 May 2022.
The applicant now applies for bail in this Court. Because he is accused of a Schedule 2 offence which is alleged to have been committed by him when he was on bail for another Schedule 2 offence, ss 4AA(2)(c)(i) and 4A of the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’) requires this Court to refuse bail unless satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail.
The alleged offending
The charges laid against the applicant contain some very serious allegations. It is not productive to attempt to summarise all of the alleged offending in these reasons.
The various prosecution cases include allegations of robberies and armed robberies being committed by the applicant, in the company of others, in public places (including one or more shopping centres, railway stations, bus stations, and a service station). One of the armed robberies is alleged to have involved the use of a large kitchen knife.
The events alleged to have occurred in the various police briefs (in particular the robberies and the armed robberies) would undoubtedly have been very traumatic (if not terrifying) for the victims of the alleged offending, who would naturally have been very fearful of what might happen to them if they did not comply with the demands made of them.
Some of the victims of the applicant’s offending were themselves young people, or people who were otherwise vulnerable. Some were on their own, or outnumbered by their assailants. All could reasonably be described as ‘soft targets’.
In relation to the aggravated carjacking and related offending that occurred on 7 January 2022, the prosecution case is that the alleged victim was so scared for his life that he elected to run from his car. It was a little after 1:25 am and the victim had been on his way home from work. The prosecution case is that, after he ran from his car, he was chased, caught and violently assaulted by the applicant and his co-accused. While defenceless on the ground he was allegedly surrounded and repeatedly kicked to the head and body and, at one stage, repeatedly stabbed.
In respect of each set of charges other than the Drain charges, the prosecution case is that the applicant offended with a number of co-accused: three co-accused in relation to the Hodgens charges; three co-accused in relation to the Cahir charges; one co-accused in relation to the Frost charges; four co-accused in relation to the Henderson charges; five co-accused in relation to the Fidler charges; one co-accused in relation to the Love charges; and five co-accused in relation to the Caffrey charges. The applicant is the youngest of those charged. His co-accused are variously between one year and five years older than him.
Applicant’s material and contentions
The application for bail is supported by an affidavit affirmed by the applicant’s solicitor, Andrew Rankin. The affidavit contains a mixture of fact and submission.
As to matters of fact, Mr Rankin deposed that the applicant is of Sudanese descent, was born in June 2008 in Dandenong, and grew up in another Melbourne suburb. In 2020, he relocated interstate to live with his father. In July 2021, he returned to Victoria where he has lived with his mother and siblings until being remanded in custody (first in January 2022, and secondly in March 2022). He has the support of his mother and father. As Mr Rankin put it in his affidavit:
The applicant’s parents are proactive and are respected members of the community. They love and support their son.
…
The applicant’s mother would welcome him home if he was to be granted bail.
While the applicant has the support of his parents, Mr Rankin deposed that the applicant is the subject of a ‘limited’ final family violence intervention order in which the protected person is the applicant’s father. The order is in force until 18 August 2022 and prohibits the applicant from committing family violence against his father, or from intentionally damaging (or threatening to damage) any of his father’s property. It appears from the Preliminary Brief in respect of the Cahir charges that the genesis of this order was a threat made by the applicant to his father, when the applicant was remanded in custody on 14 January 2022, following his father having expressed concern about the applicant returning to the family home.
Following his return to Victoria in July 2021, the applicant did not recommence his schooling. He is, however, now enrolled in a local secondary college. Mr Rankin deposed that the applicant’s instructions are that he wishes to return to school. Mr Rankin also deposed that Youth Justice (in cooperation with the Transitions Advocate at Parkville College, together with the principal of the secondary college in which the applicant is now enrolled and the applicant’s mother) ‘have developed an enrolment plan and timetable that would see the applicant attend school five days a week’.
Additionally, Mr Rankin deposed that the applicant and his mother have commenced engaging with the Multi-Systemic Family Therapy program through OzChild, an intensive intervention program with up to 60 hours of contact over a four month period focussing on promoting positive behaviour in young people and decreasing antisocial behaviour. Mr Rankin deposed that the program will assist the applicant’s family to ‘implement appropriate boundaries, strategies, and consequences’. He also deposed that the applicant’s mother has previously contacted police upon becoming aware that the applicant was failing to comply with conditions of bail. He said that she had made a commitment to contact police or Youth Justice in the future should the applicant do so again.
As to matters of submission (or mixed fact and submission), Mr Rankin deposed as follows:
·There are ‘real risks that with a further period on remand the applicant will be enamoured by the structured environment of custody and become hardened by exposure to other more serious offenders’.
·The applicant will ultimately be sentenced under the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (‘the CYF Act’), and will therefore receive ‘the benefit of s 361 which requires the court to follow the prescribed sentencing hierarchy [set out in s 360]’. Even if the applicant were to plead guilty to all charges, ‘it is objectively unlikely that [he] will receive a sentence of detention’.
·Youth Justice ‘recommends that the applicant is suitable for Youth Justice supervised bail’.
·As to the strength of the prosecution case, there is a rebuttable presumption that a child aged at least ten but less than 14 is incapable of committing a criminal act (the presumption of doli incapax).[2] Additionally, ‘there are triable issues with identification’ in relation to a number of the applicant’s charges.
·Being a young person, the applicant’s ‘rehabilitation and redirection away from the criminal justice system must be given absolute priority’.
·The COVID-19 pandemic and its effects are relevant as they bear on conditions on remand and the hardship of detention. In this regard, conditions in Youth Justice Centres are evolving; personal visits had previously been suspended; and the applicant’s mother was able to visit him in custody for the first time on 7 May 2022.
·The imposition of strict bail conditions, as well as the ongoing support of appropriate community services, will operate to ameliorate the risk of the applicant reoffending while on bail.
[2]Compare s 344 of the CYF Act which provides that there is an irrebuttable presumption that a child aged less than ten is incapable of committing an offence.
Mr Rankin submitted that ‘the applicant could be bailed on strict conditions, and that such conditions would reduce [relevant risks] to an acceptable level’, with Youth Justice officers supervising the applicant’s participation in the Youth Justice supervised bail program.
Respondent’s material and contentions
The respondent opposed bail. In doing so, it relied on two affidavits sworn by a solicitor employed with Victoria Police, Nathan Watt. In his first affidavit, Mr Watt exhibited a number of documents, including a document prepared by Detective Senior Constable Caffrey (‘the informant’s report).
In his first affidavit, Mr Watt deposed to the applicant having been involved in criminal behaviour additional to the 58 charges he is currently facing. These charges included charges of theft, robbery and assault in company. As Mr Watt put it:
The applicant has a history of criminal behaviour which has been summarised in various briefs of evidence that were ultimately withdrawn by the prosecution due to the age of the applicant and the presumption of doli incapax.
Informants for these matters include Anderson (offence dated 26 April 2020), Matthews (offence dated 29 June 2020), Ballintyne (offence dated 9 July 2020) and Sharp (offence dated 4 August 2020).[3]
[3]In his first affidavit, Mr Watt also referred to a further brief of evidence which laid charges against the applicant in respect of offending alleged to have been committed on 21 August 2021. Mr Watt said that it appeared that these charges had been ‘rejected’ by the court where an attempt to file them was made, and that the informant in respect of them would ‘need to issue a notice to proceed’.
In his second affidavit, Mr Watt deposed to a further set of withdrawn charges laid on 17 August 2021. These charges related to offences alleged to have been committed by the applicant on 16 August 2021. These charges included a charge of robbery.
In addition the withdrawn charges referred to in paras 19 and 20 above, Mr Watt referred to another set of charges, originally laid by Senior Constable Fidler, relating to offending alleged to have occurred between 1 and 7 November 2021. More specifically, on 9 November 2021, Senior Constable Fidler charged the applicant with 13 offences, including armed robbery, attempted aggravated carjacking, robbery, recklessly causing injury, theft and unlawful assault in company. These charges were, however, also subsequently withdrawn by police.
In relation to the allegations made in the withdrawn charges referred to in paras 19 to 21 above, the respondent submitted that this Court could take these matters into account in this application as they were part of the surrounding circumstances referred to in s 3AAA(1)(g) of the Act, namely, as part of ‘the accused’s personal circumstances, associations, home environment and background’.
All of that said, in his first affidavit, Mr Watt conceded that it was open to this Court to find that exceptional circumstances exist that justified the grant of bail. He said that bail was opposed, however, on the basis that the applicant is an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of any person and an unacceptable risk of committing an offence while on bail.
As to the unacceptable risk of the applicant endangering the safety and welfare of any person, the respondent relied upon the following passages in the informant’s report:
(i)The applicant repeatedly involves himself in serious offending which endangers the safety and welfare of the public.
(ii)The applicant has been charged with Robberies, Armed Robberies, a Kidnapping and assaults.
(iii) The applicant has also engaged in numerous Theft of Motor Vehicles.
(iv)On his most recent arrest, the applicant has been involved in another Armed Robbery while in a stolen vehicle, before being the driver engaging in seriously concerning driving behaviour in an attempt to avoid apprehension.
(v)The applicant was observed travelling 75km/h on a footpath for approximately 31 seconds. During this, unknown pedestrians were observed by highway patrol members to be on or near the footpath, had the vehicle collided with a pedestrian at such speeds it would almost certainly have resulted in a fatality or serious injury.
(vi)While the applicant’s young age is of concern regarding time spent in custody, the clear disregard he has repeatedly shown for the safety and welfare of his victim’s and the public indicates he is at significant risk of continuing this offending regardless of bail intervention.
(vii)Police hold significant concerns the applicant will continue to offend in this manner which may soon result in the serious injury or death of a member of public.
As to the unacceptable risk of the applicant committing an offence while on bail, the respondent relied on the following passages in the informant’s report:
(i)The applicant has repeatedly offended regardless of his bail situation. The applicant was bailed on 22nd of December 2021 in relation to the Senior Constable HODGENS matter and was later arrested in a stolen vehicle the same day for the Detective Senior Constable CAHIR matter.
(ii)On 14th of January 2022 the applicant was arrested again in relation to Armed Robbery, Kidnapping and False Imprisonment for the Senior Constable FROST matter.
(iii)The applicant was remanded in custody until the 25th of February 2022. Despite being bailed, the applicant has continued to offend in a similar manner.
(iv)The applicant actively avoids Police, and will flee given the opportunity, Police hold significant concerns the applicant will continue to offend whilst on bail regardless of bail intervention.
Consideration
The applicant bears the burden of establishing the existence of exceptional circumstances which justify the grant of bail.[4] Even if the applicant satisfies the exceptional circumstances test, bail must be refused if the respondent establishes that there is an unacceptable risk that the applicant would, if released on bail, endanger the safety or welfare of any person, or commit an offence while on bail, or interfere with a witness or otherwise obstruct the course of justice in any matter, or fail to surrender himself into custody in accordance with the conditions of bail.[5]
[4]See s 4A of the Act.
[5]See s 4E of the Act.
It is well established that exceptional circumstances may consist of a combination of circumstances. That said, effectively, the applicant has to establish circumstances right out of the ordinary. As has been said many times by judges of this Court, such circumstances have to be exceptional to the ordinary circumstances which would otherwise entitle the applicant to bail.[6]
[6]See for example, DPP v Muhaidat [2004] VSC 17, [13] (Kaye J); Re JF [2020] VSC 250, [31] (Tinney J).
If this were a case involving an adult alleged to have committed the same offences in the same circumstances as the present applicant, there could be no doubt that bail would have to be refused. Of critical importance in the present application, however, is s 3B of the Act and the principles and considerations which must be taken into account when determining whether or not to grant bail to a child.[7] Relevantly, s 3B lists a number of mandatory considerations which must be taken into account in making a determination under the Act in relation to a child. Those considerations are:
[7]See generally Re Application for Bail by JF [2017] VSC 139 (Lasry J); Re JO [2018] VSC 438 (T Forrest J); Re FA [2018] VSC 372 (Priest JA); Re JF [2020] VSC 250 (Tinney J); HA v The Queen [2021] VSCA 64 (Maxwell P and Kaye JA); Re GA [2022] VSC 148 (Fox J).
(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.
In Re JO,[8] T Forrest J had to consider a bail application made on behalf of another 13 year old child. As to the issue of exceptional circumstances in such an application, his Honour said:
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.[9]
[8][2018] VSC 438.
[9]Ibid [14] (footnote omitted).
In the present case, notwithstanding the very serious and concerning nature of the charges that have been laid against the applicant, I am persuaded that the applicant’s young age, and the steps that have been taken to place him back into the community and an appropriate place of education, constitute exceptional circumstances justifying a grant of bail.
In so concluding, I have not overlooked any of the surrounding circumstances referred to in s 3AAA of the Act, which are required to be taken into account in considering whether exceptional circumstances exist.[10] While a number of the individual surrounding circumstances identified in s 3AAA of the Act are of varying relevance in the present case,[11] the length of time he is likely to spend in custody if bail is refused[12] and the likely sentence to be imposed[13] are matters of greater significance than some of the other surrounding circumstances, particularly given the possibility that the applicant might not be sentenced to any detention having regard to ss 360 and 361 of the CYF Act (notwithstanding the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant[14]).
[10]See s 4A(3) of the Act.
[11]For example, the matters referred to in ss 3AAA(1)(c) and (i) (being the lack of any criminal history and the availability of bail support services) are clearly more relevant in the present case than the matters referred to in ss 3AAA(1)(m) and (n) (which deal with expressing support for, or associating with persons who express support for, terrorist organizations).
[12]See s 3AAA(1)(k) of the Act.
[13]See s 3AAA(1)(l) of the Act.
[14]As to which, see s 3AAA(1)(a) of the Act.
Plainly there are individual surrounding circumstances that tell against the applicant so far as the exceptional circumstances test is concerned (for example, the seriousness of the alleged offending,[15] the applicant’s apparent failure to comply with grants of bail made in late 2021 and February 2022,[16] and the family violence intervention order made against him[17]). However, when all of the surrounding circumstances are properly synthesised, there can be little doubt that, given the applicant’s age, lack of prior criminal history and likely sentencing disposition, the exceptional circumstances test is made out.
[15]Ibid.
[16]See s 3AAA(1)(d) of the Act.
[17]See s 3AAA(1)(f) of the Act.
The community’s interest in taking the applicant out of detention (with all the downside that the detention of a young person by the criminal justice system entails) is a matter of great importance. The detrimental effects of detention on a young person, to that person and to the wider community, are well known such that every possible step that can reasonably be taken to avoid them by this Court in the proper application of the Act, and more generally should be taken. The real issue in a case such as the present is whether the respondent has established that if the applicant is released on bail, there is an unacceptable risk of the kind referred to in s 4E of the Act.
Undoubtedly there are risks that if bail is granted to the applicant he will reoffend and that such reoffending will endanger the safety or welfare of those whom he chooses to offend against. These are the principal risks of granting the applicant bail. While there are risks that he might interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice or fail to surrender himself into custody if granted bail, it seems to me that these are lesser risks in the present case. The question is whether there are conditions which could be imposed on a grant of bail which would make the risks the applicant poses not unacceptable.
The applicant has the support of Youth Justice. A Youth Justice Bail Support Service Report dated 24 May 2022 (‘the youth bail report’) written by Jayden Rischitelli (an Advanced Case Manager employed by Youth Justice), and endorsed by Julius Oderberg (a Team Leader employed by Youth Justice) was relied upon by the applicant in support of bail being granted to him.[18] The youth bail report recommended that the applicant be granted supervised bail on a number of conditions.
[18]Section 3B(2) of the Act permits a bail decision maker to take into account any recommendation or information contained in a report provided by a bail support service.
At the hearing this morning, both Mr Rischitelli and Mr Oderberg were present in court in support of bail being granted to the applicant. During the hearing, Mr Rischitelli gave evidence, and was cross-examined, about his dealings and interactions with the applicant, the applicant’s progress in custody, and the steps Youth Justice have taken and propose to take in the future in order to support the applicant. Ultimately, Youth Justice recommended that bail be granted on terms that there be judicial monitoring as directed by the Court, and bail conditions requiring the applicant to engage with it and any programs it considers suitable from time to time.
There is considerable substance in the concerns expressed in the informant’s report about the risk of the applicant endangering the safety and welfare of members of the public and committing criminal offences if released on bail. The respondent rightly notes the applicant’s very poor compliance with bail conditions — particularly after his release on supervised bail in late February 2022. In the youth bail report, however, it is observed that ‘breaching numerous bail conditions’ is ‘not uncommon for young people in [the applicant’s] age group on their first period of supervised bail’. Of course, this provides no excuse for the applicant’s failure to comply with bail conditions. It is, however, an explanation to be taken into account along with the myriad of other factors relevant to this case.
The youth bail report states that, at the present time, the applicant ‘has received a direct consequence for the alleged offending due to time already spent on remand’. Mr Rischitelli and Mr Oderberg also state their opinion that, with custody being considered a last resort in respect of child offenders, ‘it is possible that [the applicant] may not receive a custodial sentence for the alleged offending’. This possibility is, of course, directly relevant to the question of whether the applicant’s release now (and under appropriate supervision) involves the taking of a risk which is, in the circumstances, acceptable (or, more correctly, a risk or risks which the respondent has not established to be unacceptable[19]).
[19]See s 4E(2)(b) of the Act.
Put another way, at some point in time the applicant will be released from custody. The applicant’s past behaviour suggests that, at that point in time, there will be a risk that he will commit further offences and/or endanger the safety of members of the public. The provisions of the Act are not designed to keep alleged offenders in custody beyond the length of any term of detention or imprisonment that may ultimately be imposed upon them. It is no purpose of the Act to detain or incarcerate (on some protective or preventative or other basis) alleged offenders beyond the term of any sentence which might reasonably be imposed.[20] Moreover, it may be that such risks as are associated with the applicant’s eventual release are better managed during a period when he has the supports currently contemplated in place, and when he is maximally motivated to be of good behaviour, lest he be remanded back into custody for breaching a condition of bail.
[20]See further, HA v The Queen [2021] VSCA 64, [63]-[64] (Maxwell P and Kaye JA).
Additionally, I note the opinion in the youth bail report that, with ‘appropriate community-based supports’, the applicant has ‘strong prospects of rehabilitation’. Plainly, it is in the interests of the applicant and the wider community that these prospects of rehabilitation be fostered and encouraged to the maximum extent possible now, rather than taking the well-known risks associated with the continued detention of a child within the criminal justice system.
Having taken into account all of the surrounding circumstances, again, as is required by s 4E(3)(a) of the Act when considering the issue of unacceptable risk, I am not persuaded that the risks which the applicant poses if released on bail are unacceptable in all of the circumstances as I have explained them. I thus propose to grant bail on the following terms:
(1) The applicant be admitted to bail on his own undertaking to appear at the Children’s Court on 27 July 2022, and on any other date upon which any of his matters are listed in that Court, and then surrender himself and must not depart without the leave of the Court and, if leave is given, return at the time specified by the Court and again surrender himself into custody.
(2) The following conditions apply to this grant of bail:
(a) The applicant reside at [redacted address].
(b) The applicant attend and comply with all the lawful directives of the Youth Justice Supervised Bail Support Service.
(c) The applicant remain at his place of residence between the hours of 8:00 pm and 7:00 am each day for the duration of bail unless in the company of his mother or a nominee of Youth Justice.
(d) The applicant present at the front door of his residence during curfew hours if called upon by a member of Victoria Police to do so.
(e) The applicant engage with support services as directed by Youth Justice.
(f) The applicant not, directly or indirectly, either in person, by telephone, or electronically, contact or associate with any co-accused and/or [redacted name].
(g) The applicant attend and participate in school, educational activities and any other programs as directed by Youth Justice.
(h) The applicant not contact, whether directly or indirectly, any complainants, or witnesses for the prosecution in any of the matters where he is named as an accused other than the informants in those matters.
(i) The applicant must not consume any alcohol or any drug of dependence within the meaning of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1998 without lawful authorisation under that Act.
(j) The applicant must not leave the State of Victoria.
(k) The applicant must not drive any motor vehicle or motorcycle.
(l) The applicant is to appear in this Court on Monday 20 June 2022 at 9:30 am for judicial monitoring, and thereafter as directed by this Court.
(m) The applicant report to the Officer in Charge of the Police Station at Cranbourne (168 Sladen Street, Cranbourne, Victoria) or his or her nominee, once a week on the Saturday of each week between the hours of 9:00 am and 6:00 pm.
- - -
7
0