Re Mizzi
[2022] VSC 14
•21 January 2022
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2021 0377
| In the matter of the Bail Act 1977 |
| and |
| In the matter of an application for bail by Michael Mizzi |
---
JUDGE: | Champion J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 19 January 2022 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 21 January 2022 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Re Mizzi |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VSC 14 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Applicant charged with stalking, using a carriage service to harass, persistent contravention of FVIOs, causing criminal damage (arson) - History of relevant criminal offending, breaches of court orders - Acceptance in residential drug rehabilitation program — Exceptional circumstances not found – Unacceptable risk – Bail refused – Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4AA, 4E, 5AAA.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Ms D Pastoors | Victoria Police |
| For the Accused | Mr S Kenny | KPW Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
By application dated 20 December 2021, Michael Mizzi, (‘the applicant’) applies for a grant of bail from this court.
On 19 May 2021 the applicant was arrested in New South Wales, extradited, and remanded in custody by the Wodonga Magistrate’s Court on charges brought by Detective Senior Constable Michael Uhrhane ('the Uhrhane matters') relating to allegations of family violence against his ex-partner between 24 April and 8 May 2021, as follows:
·stalking;
·using a carriage service to harass;
·persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order ('FVIO');
·contravening an interim FVIO (six counts);
·contravening an interim FVIO causing harm or fear; and
·causing criminal damage (arson).
The applicant was refused bail on 26 August 2021 at the Wodonga Magistrates' Court on the basis that he failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances which justified the grant of bail, and that he posed an unacceptable risk of committing an offence whilst on bail, namely endangering the safety or welfare of any person, interfering with a witness or otherwise obstructing the course of justice, and failing to surrender into custody in accordance with bail.
The matters are next listed at the Wodonga Magistrates' Court on 8 March 2022 for special mention, and then for a contested hearing on 6 April 2022.
At the time of the alleged offending the applicant was subject to two community correction orders ('CCOs') as well as a summons for a further matter where the informant is Detective Senior Constable Leonard (‘the Leonard matters’). This matter will be discussed below.
The application
The application is supported by the affidavit of Chirag Patel, solicitor, dated 20 December 2021, attached to which there are a series of exhibits. On 18 January 2022, Mr Patel swore a further affidavit providing supporting material, also attached to which are further exhibits, which will be noted below.
In response to the application, the respondent filed an affidavit sworn by Paul Collins, government lawyer, dated 7 January 2022, also attaching a series of exhibits. It should be noted that exhibit PTC-1, being a 15-page report compiled by the informant, Michael Uhrhane, and dated 4 January 2021, contained an error in the date. During the hearing, the informant confirmed that the date of this report should read 4 January 2022.
Further, the respondent filed written submissions dated 18 January 2022.
The application before this court proceeded on the basis of submissions and argument, with no witnesses being required to give evidence.
The alleged offending
Background
Contained within the written material exhibited in the respective affidavits, are a number of summaries of the allegations made by the prosecution against the applicant. A description of the central allegations appears below and has been taken from the summaries provided within the written material.
The applicant and complainant Sheridan Tassie were in an intimate relationship for approximately two years, which was ended by the complainant in September 2017.
On 29 March 2021 an interim FVIO was granted against the applicant, listing the complainant as the affected family member ('AFM'). The order included conditions not to commit family violence, not to damage property and not to go to, or remain within 200 metres of, any place where the AFM lives.
The complainant had commenced a relationship with Kane Jones in April 2021, and the prosecution alleges that there was a significant escalation in the applicant's offending behaviour towards her after he became aware of this relationship.
The Uhrhane matters
Between 24 April 2021 and 12 May 2021 it is alleged the applicant repeatedly contacted the complainant via mobile phone, voicemail and email. The applicant often contacted the complainant on ‘no caller ID’ as the complainant had blocked his phone number and her social media accounts. The voicemail messages and emails were often abusive and derogatory towards the complainant and her partner, and caused significant distress to the complainant.
On 26 April 2021 it is alleged the applicant sent an email to the complainant's father's workplace at the Wodonga Council alleging that the complainant is a sex worker, and attaching a photograph of the complainant in lingerie. The email address to which the communication was sent is generically open to many members of staff of the Council.
Further, it is alleged that at approximately 3am on 3 May 2021 the applicant went to the complainant's address in Wodonga, where Mr Jones had parked his vehicle. The applicant set fire to the vehicle before running from the scene. CCTV at the time of the incident is said to have captured the applicant in the complainant's street, wearing clothing matching some items later seized from his residence by police. A photograph taken of the burning vehicle reveals that it was parked close to a domestic premises when it was burning.
On 4 May 2021 the applicant sent the complainant an email stating that someone was going to poison her cats, which caused her to fear that the applicant was going to harm them.
On 5 May 2021 the FVIO was varied by the Wodonga Magistrates' Court to include full ‘no-contact’ conditions. The order was not served on the applicant until 19 May 2021.
Between 30 April and 7 May 2021 the applicant contacted the complainant's workplace 15 times. On 7 May 2021 the applicant submitted an online complaint to the complainant's workplace regarding her customer service. The complainant was distressed and believed she would lose her job as a result of the complaint. That night the applicant left a voicemail message on the complainant's mobile phone threatening to advise her workplace that she was a sex worker.
In broad terms, the prosecution alleges the applicant sent to the complainant a very large number of repetitive, abusive and threatening communications by email, text message, and voicemail messages over the relevant period of time.
Arrest and search
On 18 May 2021 a warrant was issued for the arrest of the applicant. On 19 May 2021 police located the applicant in his caravan in Albury. The applicant was arrested and extradited to Victoria that day.
Police searched the applicant's caravan and located two mobile phones, clothing believed to have been worn by the applicant during the arson on 3 May 2021, seven cannabis plants and a bank card in the name of C. Harmer.
Outstanding matters
In addition to the matters the applicant is currently remanded and seeking the grant of bail, he is also charged on summons for the following matters.
Informant Leonard matter
It is alleged that between July 2019 and June 2020 the applicant contacted Melissa Hausner a number of times to question her about the applicant's ex-partner Sheridan Tassie. Ms Hausner is the best friend of Ms Tassie.
The applicant sent Ms Hausner numerous abusive and threatening text and voicemail messages, and sexually explicit emails. He also sent her threats that he was going to 'ruin' her, and that she was going to have an 'unfortunate accident'.
On 17 November 2020 the applicant was charged with making a threat to kill, stalking and using a carriage service to harass. The applicant was released on summons. He was not interviewed in relation to these allegations.
This matter is listed on 8 March 2022 at the Wodonga Magistrates' Court for special mention.
Breach of a CCO (Informant Nichols)
On 24 April 2019 the applicant was sentenced to a CCO for a period of 18 months for offences of driving whilst disqualified, refusing to accompany police for an oral fluid test, trafficking methylamphetamine and dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime, relating to two incidents in 2017 and 2018. First, on 28 September 2017 the applicant was intercepted by police driving whilst disqualified, and refused to accompany police to provide an oral fluid test. Second, on 20 October 2018 police conducted a search of the applicant and his vehicle, whereby they located 141 grams of methylamphetamine and $3,215 in cash.
The CCO included conditions to undergo supervision, drug treatment, offending behaviour programs and judicial monitoring. The applicant was charged with contravening this CCO on 15 September 2020 on the basis of non-compliance and committing further offences whilst subject to the order. It was recommended that his order be cancelled and he be re-sentenced for the original offending.
The matter is listed for contravention proceedings on 8 March 2022 at Wodonga Magistrates' Court.
Breach of a CCO (Informant Burns)
On 21 September 2020 the applicant was sentenced to 73 days imprisonment and a CCO for a period of 18 months. The offences involved the persistent contravention of the FVIO protecting the primary complainant Sheridan Tassie, via text message and phone calls. These offences were alleged to have been committed between 5 December 2019 and 16 February 2020, in which the applicant is alleged to have communicated with Ms Tassie on more than 1000 occasions by various electronic means.
The CCO included conditions to undergo supervision and drug treatment. However, the applicant was later charged with contravening the order on 24 May 2021 on the basis of non-compliance, and allegedly committing further offences whilst subject to the order. It was recommended that the order be cancelled and he be re-sentenced for the original offences.
The applicable legislation
In determining an application for bail, the Court is required to have regard to the guiding principles as set out in s 1B(1) Bail Act 1977 ('the Act').
Because the applicant is accused of committing a Schedule 2 offence during the period of a CCO for another Schedule 2 offence, s 4AA(2)(c)(iv) dictates that bail must be refused unless he satisfies the Court that exceptional circumstances exist which justify the grant of bail. In determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, the Court is obliged to take into account all of the relevant surrounding circumstances, including those set out in s 3AAA of the Act.
If satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist, the Court must then move to consider the unacceptable risk test. The Court must refuse bail if satisfied by the respondent that there is a risk of the kind set out in s 4E(1)(a) of the Act, and that such a risk is unacceptable. In determining whether a risk is unacceptable, the Court must again have regard to the surrounding circumstances and consider whether there are any conditions of bail that may be imposed to mitigate any risk so that it is not unacceptable.
Finally, s 5AAAA(1) of the Act requires the Court to make inquiries of the respondent as to whether there is in force against the applicant a FVIO, family violence safety notice or another recognised domestic violence order. Further, as the applicant is charged with family violence offences, the Court must consider whether, if he were released on bail, there would be a risk that he would commit family violence, and if so, whether that risk could be mitigated by the imposition of a bail condition or the making of a FVIO. In this matter it appears not disputed that at relevant times there was, and still is, in force against the applicant a FVIO, family violence safety notice or another recognised domestic violence order. The respondent has confirmed the applicant is currently subject to a final FVIO, listing complainant Sheridan Tassie as the AFM. The order was granted on 5 July 2021 and includes full no contact conditions. It is due to expire on 22 March 2026.
The applicant's personal circumstances
The applicant is 36 years old. He has four children, with a 15 year old son residing with the applicant's mother in Queensland. None of his children are with the complainant in the present matters. He maintains a degree of contact with all his children.
The applicant is said to have led a chaotic life. Although keeping fairly regular employment, he has not been able to maintain a stable address, and he has a history of substance use, reporting that he would consume methylamphetamine and cannabis on a daily basis. He regularly lives in a caravan park, and did so at the time of his alleged offending in these matters. It was submitted that at the time of his arrest it appeared he was using methamphetamine as heavily as he could, and using it every day. The applicant submitted that, in his view, methamphetamine use was the explanation for his aggressive, dangerous and abusive conduct.
Prior to his remand the applicant reported mental health issues and suicidal ideation, and was prescribed anti-depressants by his general practitioner. The applicant has reported a significant improvement to his mental health whilst being in custody due to abstinence from illicit substances and the establishment of routine.
The applicant’s criminal history
The applicant has relevant criminal history in Victoria and New South Wales spanning 2001 to 2020. His prior convictions reveal multiple instances of breaching intervention orders, wilfully damaging property, trafficking and abuse of drugs, and contravening community correction orders. The applicant’s criminal record includes the following court outcomes in Victoria:
·April 2019: the applicant was sentenced to an aggregate eight months' imprisonment and a CCO for a period of 18 months for a consolidation of drug, property and driving offences.
·September 2020: the applicant was sentenced to 73 days' imprisonment and a CCO for 18 months for three counts of persistent contravention of a FVIO.
Further, the applicant has the following relevant criminal history in New South Wales:
·January 2011: the applicant was fined $400 for a single charge of common assault (domestic violence related).
·August 2015: the applicant was sentenced to two years' and one month imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 15 months for supplying an indictable quantity of prohibited drugs.
·November 2017: the applicant was sentenced to an aggregate eight months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two months and 17 days for domestic violence and bail offences. Notably, these convictions relate to stalking and assault of the complainant Sheridan Tassie.
The applicant's contentions
The applicant relies on the following matters, in combination, to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of bail.
Strength of the prosecution case
The applicant initially submitted that the prosecution case for the charge of arson was weak, and that the Informant conceded this at the bail application on 26 August 2021. The applicant noted he has offered to plead guilty to the charges of contravention of the FVIO, and acknowledged that the charges of stalking and the persistent breach of the family violence intervention order can properly be described as serious charges.
In oral submissions, the applicant contended that charges 4 and 11, as appear listed in the police charge sheet, are defensible, and it is intended that the applicant will plead not guilty to those charges. The applicant addressed submissions to the nature and strength of the evidence in respect of both those charges, whilst conceding that there exists a reasonable circumstantial case against the applicant, particularly in relation to charge 11, there are issues that remain in dispute, and triable. The applicant noted that evidence of an alleged admission to a friend of the complainant are in dispute and will be strongly contested. The applicant also noted that there appears to be a conflict in the evidence as to the point of ignition of the fire that destroyed the motor vehicle.
Ultimately, the applicant conceded that the case in respect of the arson charge could not be described as a weak case, but asserted there was a very real defence to the charge, in the context of “some weaknesses to the prosecution case”.
Criminal history
It is conceded that the applicant has previous convictions for charges of persistent contravention of FVIOs, and that these have involved offending against the present complainant. In part, submissions about the applicant’s criminal history were related to whether a sentence of over 10 months imprisonment, being the time expected to be served by the applicant until the date of his hearing, would be warranted in all the circumstances of his alleged offending.
Outstanding matters
The alleged offending occurred whilst the applicant was subject to a summons for the Leonard matter and two CCOs in operation at the time. It is conceded that these matters involve similar offending to the Uhrhane matters.
Availability of treatment or bail support services
It was noted that the applicant was assessed by the Court Integrated Services Program ('CISP') and a report dated 18 January 2022 was prepared for the Court prior to this hearing. However, as will be noted below, possible case management of the applicant by CISP was superseded by the acceptance of the applicant for a program at The Cottage, such that if the applicant were admitted to bail he would proceed directly to that place upon release from his remand custody. In passing, it is noted that the applicant previously proposed that if bail were granted, he would reside for an interim short period at an address in Benalla with Adrian Service and his mother. Ultimately, that proposal was not pressed.
The applicant submits that he has been accepted into a rehabilitation program to be provided by The Cottage, an organisation located in Shepparton. It is submitted that the applicant should be admitted into that program and that the availability of residential rehabilitation is the most significant circumstance relied upon to support his application for bail. In support of this submission the applicant provided a report dated 17 January 2022 authored by Aaron Gilhooley, the forensic intake manager of The Cottage. The letter set out the detail of what might be expected to be provided to the applicant by the intended program. It is noted that the respondent did not take issue with the matters relied on within the report, and did not seek viva voce evidence from the author.
Delay and likely sentence
The applicant submits that the time spent on remand is likely to exceed any custodial sentence he would receive if found guilty of the offences. However, it is noted that the applicant previously received a sentencing indication in the Magistrates' Court of a lengthy term of imprisonment in the Uhrhane matter alone. As above, the matter is listed for a summary contested hearing on 6 April 2022.
The applicant conceded that this was not a case where the period of incarceration up to the hearing date was manifestly beyond any period of time that the applicant may have to serve in custody, but nevertheless submitted that by the time the matter is heard, the applicant will have spent a significant period of time in custody if not admitted to bail. At the hearing of the application, it was noted that the applicant has been in custody for 246 days and that by 6 April 2022, that period will have been 323 days. Furthermore, the applicant noted that the period of custody served by the applicant has been during the COVID pandemic circumstances, with the difficulties that have attached to period of incarceration during that time.
Surety
The applicant's mother, Jan Hanily, has proposed a surety of $20,000 to be provided by way of equity in real property. Evidence has been provided of the availability of the funds that are proposed to be put forward to support the proposal. This evidence was not disputed by the respondent.
It is submitted that the above factors taken together, complemented by other conditions requiring the applicant not to have a mobile telephone or restricting access to the internet, provide sufficient evidence to establish that the applicant satisfies the exceptional circumstances test and he should be admitted to bail.
Unacceptable risk
It is submitted that any unacceptable risk alleged by the respondent can be moderated to an acceptable level by the applicant’s admission to the program offered by The Cottage, along with the imposition of conditions of bail, including as to residence, curfew, not to enter city of Wodonga, not to leave the state of Victoria, and not to contact any prosecution witnesses, further add to ameliorating the risk to a point where admission to bail can be safely granted. It was further noted that during the applicant’s time in remand custody, his behaviour has improved, as demonstrated by a series of reports from Fulham prison, referred to in the course of submissions. The effect of the submissions on this issue was that, along with his admission to residential rehabilitation program at The Cottage, these factors provide evidence capable of ameliorating the risk of the applicant committing further offences should he be admitted to bail.
The respondent's contentions
The application for bail is opposed on the basis that the applicant has not discharged the burden of satisfying the Court as to the existence of exceptional circumstances justifying a grant of bail. It is further submitted that the applicant poses an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of any person, committing an offence whilst on bail, interfering with a witness or otherwise obstructing the course of justice, and failing to surrender into custody in accordance with bail.
As noted above, the respondent filed written submissions which were relied on, and supplemented by brief oral submissions.
In response to the applicant's contentions, and in addressing the surrounding circumstances, and unacceptable risk, the respondent relies on the following.
Strength of the prosecution case
In regard to the charge of arson, the prosecution submits that the evidence does not reveal that this charge is weak, but rather should be seen in the context of an overall circumstantial case, relying on a number of facts and circumstances to prove the applicant’s guilt. The applicant intends to rely upon the CCTV footage, clothing seized from the applicant's residence, and a witness statement containing an alleged confession by the applicant.
Criminal history
The respondent notes that the applicant has previous convictions for similar offending against the same complainant.
Bail compliance history
The applicant has prior history for failing to appear on bail in NSW and Victoria and it is submitted that he will continue to pose a flight risk.
Outstanding matters
Further, the respondent notes that the applicant's outstanding matters relate to similar offending against the complainant and her friend.
Family violence intervention order in force
The applicant has been listed as the respondent on numerous family violence reports by the complainant. The respondent submits that the imposition of bail conditions will not adequately ameliorate the applicant's high risk of committing further family violence offences.
Availability of treatment or bail support services
The respondent submits that the applicant is unlikely to engage with any support or treatment, as evidenced by his non-compliance with the CCOs.
Complainant's views on bail
The complainant has expressed fear for her own safety, and that the applicant will continue offending against her if he were to be released on bail. The respondent submits that the view of the complainant is supported by a review of the applicant’s prior history as it relates to his victim.
Unacceptable risk
The respondent relied on the following factors, as well as various of the factors discussed above in relation to the exceptional circumstances test, to submit that the unacceptable circumstances has been satisfied.
Endangering the safety and welfare of any person
The respondent submits that the applicant poses an unacceptable risk to the complainant and her new partner if released on bail.
Committing an offence whilst on bail
The applicant is alleged to have committed offences whilst subject to court orders, and the respondent contends that if the applicant is released this offending behaviour will continue.
Interfering with a witness or otherwise obstructing the course of justice in any matter
It is submitted that the applicant's pattern of behaviour in continuously contacting the complainant in breach of FVIOs suggests he will continue to interfere with witnesses if released on bail.
Failing to surrender into custody in accordance with the conditions of bail
The applicant has a history of failing to appear on bail and avoiding police apprehension, and thus it is submitted that he poses a flight risk.
Analysis and conclusions
I have taken into account all of the legislative requirements to be satisfied in the application of the exceptional circumstances test, as set out above. As well, I have considered the relevant law as it has developed in this court concerning the meaning and application of the exceptional circumstances test. Balancing the competing factors put forward by both parties, I am of the opinion that the applicant has not satisfied the exceptional circumstances test in this application.
As to the strength of the prosecution case, in respect of the email sent to the protected persons father’s workplace, and the charge of arson, namely charges 4 and 11, I am not of the opinion that either charge should be regarded as weak. Ultimately, it was not put forward by the applicant that either case was weak, but rather emphasis was laid on the cases against the applicant being reasonably arguable. It is not the role of this court to conduct a close examination of the evidence but rather form a general view of whether the charges laid against the applicant might be regarded as weak, or strong, thus more strongly supporting, or not supporting, the applicant’s argument that the exceptional circumstances test has been met. Ultimately it will be a matter for a Magistrate to determine where the strength and weaknesses of the case against the applicant lie, and to consider issues of reliability and creditworthiness of various witnesses called. This court is not in a position to entertain that task. Furthermore, it might be noted that the applicant has foreshadowed pleas of guilty to a number of the family violence charges, which in all the circumstances should themselves be regarded as examples of serious offending.
With respect to the aspect of delay, it is clear that having been placed into custody in New South Wales on 19 May 2021, the applicant has already served a significant period on remand. However, as noted above, the applicant’s matters are listed for a contested 2-day hearing on 4 April 2022. Accordingly, this is not a case where it can be argued that the applicant will go on to experience a delay reaching into 2023, or 2024 in an extreme case. It is expected that the applicant’s hearing will be resolved in approximately three months from today.
I have also taken into account that the applicant’s mother has indicated preparedness to be a surety for the applicant, and that funds are clearly available to cover that aspect should bail have been granted.
A significant component of the application before this court related to the proposal the applicant will undertake a rehabilitation program at The Cottage, located in Shepparton, in the event that he is admitted to bail in the period leading up to his contested hearing in April 2022. A reasonable evaluation of the evidence put before this court reveals that the applicant has a history of drug abuse, including the use of ice and cannabis. His prior convictions demonstrate that much. The Cottage is said to offer “a participative, group-based approach to long-term mental illness, personality disorders and drug addiction”. However, whilst The Cottage will provide a program of this kind, I am not satisfied that a satisfactory evidentiary basis has been provided that the applicant’s drug abuse is connected to his alleged offending behaviour against the complainant. Further, the applicant claims that his alleged offending behaviour is connected to, and has been contributed to, by a form of mental illness. Whilst it appears that the applicant has received some treatment for depression in the past, although not particularly recently, the evidence goes little distance in explaining how his drug addiction or asserted mental illness has contributed to his alleged continuing fixation on the complainant and her new partner. Little, if anything, explains how these factors bear any connection with his alleged offending, and the nature of it. What remains unexplained is how it is envisaged that any treatment that the applicant may be provided by The Cottage such that it might be related to any change in his behaviour towards the victims of his offending.
The applicant has a very poor criminal record indeed, spanning two states, and particularly as it relates to previous offending concerning the current complainant. The allegation is that the applicant’s offending behaviour towards the affected family member escalated significantly since she formed a new relationship, and led ultimately to the applicant allegedly setting fire to the complainant’s new partner’s motor vehicle. If proven to be correct, that action represented a significant and very disturbing escalation in the applicant’s offending behaviour towards the complainant, and her new partner. The motor vehicle was destroyed, and a photograph contained within the filed materials depicts that emergency services attended, and that the event occurred close to the residential premises occupied by the complainant at the time. Acknowledging the prosecution case as it currently stands as alleged behaviour, in my opinion the destruction of the car by fire was an example of dangerous offending, said to have been carried out by the applicant who was jealous and angry, with the purpose of the action being to significantly intimidate and terrify the victims of the offending, not to mention the financial loss to the owner of the car. Furthermore, this particular action must also be evaluated in the context of a number of previous verbal threats made by the applicant towards the safety and well-being of the complainant and her partner. It is hardly surprising that the complainant asserts that she is scared. She alleges that the applicant has relentlessly engaged in many instances of threatening and abusive communications in which he has claimed ownership of her, and threatening her with various consequences, as well as others with serious violence. One particular secondary complainant asserts that she is scared for her life. Further, the applicant was prepared to extend the scope of his abuse and threats towards the complainant to two different workplaces. Evaluated broadly, the applicant has engaged in what might be seen as unremitting and unconstrained abuse of multiple people when it suited him.
In the event of the applicant being convicted of the arson offence, and in the context of his poor criminal history, and particularly in respect of his overall previous offending involving the complainant, I would not expect that the applicant would be sentenced to a period of imprisonment less than the period of remand that he will have served.
Furthermore, I have noted comments of the author of a CISP report dated 18 January 2022 which reflect that on interview the applicant presented with limited insight into his personal behaviours and was resistant in discussing them. He advised that whilst he ‘accepted responsibility for his current situation’, he cited drug use as the sole contributing factor. He is said to have become agitated and defensive when questioned further about these issues, such that the author believed that he would benefit from participation in a men’s behavioural change program in addition to programs undertaken at rehabilitation. Clearly, the applicant has a number of significant issues that he must address in the future.
In all the circumstances, taking into account all the relevant factors and evidence placed before the court, I am not satisfied that the applicant has established exceptional circumstances such that he should be admitted to bail.
Having concluded that the application should fail on the above basis, I will comment in passing that if I have come to a wrong conclusion in respect of the applicant’s failure to satisfy the exceptional circumstances test, and that he satisfied the required test, in any event I would have easily concluded that the respondent has satisfied me that the applicant represents an unacceptable risk, within the meaning of the Act. In my opinion, the applicant’s poor criminal history with respect to the complainant and the extent of his demonstrated disregard for previous court orders, all in combination, persuade me that the risk is unacceptable to the point that his application for bail would have been dismissed in any event.
Accordingly, the order of the court will be that the application is dismissed.
0
0
0