Re O'Connell
[2023] VSC 726
•28 November 2023
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2023 0273
| IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) |
| AND |
| IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by Muiris O’Connell |
---
JUDGE: | Elliott J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 28 November 2023 |
DATE OF RULING: | 28 November 2023 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Re O’Connell |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VSC 726 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Applicant charged with importing commercial quantity of border controlled drugs and related offences – Schedule 2 offence – Requirement to show a compelling reason – Whether unacceptable risk – Bail granted – Bail Act 1977 (Vic), ss 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4C, 4D, 4E.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the applicant | S Tovey | Stary Norton Halphen |
| For the respondent | M Keks | Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions |
HIS HONOUR:
A. Introduction
On 10 November 2023, an application for bail was filed in this court on behalf of Muiris O’Connell (“O’Connell”). O’Connell is an Irish citizen residing in Australia on a skilled migrant visa.
On 18 July 2023, O’Connell was arrested, charged and remanded at Melbourne Airport for the following drug-related offences:
(1)Importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, namely gamma-butyrolactone (“GBL”), contrary to section 307.1(1) of the schedule (“the Criminal Code”) to the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).
(2)Possession of a drug of dependence, namely 1,4-butanediol, contrary to section 73(1) of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic).
(3)Importing a border controlled drug, namely ketamine, contrary to section 307.4(1) of the Criminal Code.
(4)Importing a border controlled drug, namely methamphetamine, contrary to section 307.4(1) of the Criminal Code.
On 8 November 2023, O’Connell made an unsuccessful application for bail in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria. At the committal mention on the same day, O’Connell indicated he would plead guilty to the charges against him. It will be submitted on the plea that none of the drugs in O’Connell’s possession at the time of his arrest were intended for sale.
The prosecution does not accept this characterisation of the conduct, as O’Connell admitted an intention to supply drugs to persons he knew. However, the prosecution does accept that O’Connell was not engaged as a non-user in the business of an ongoing operation of drug importation for profit.
The respondent opposes bail on the basis that O’Connell has failed to demonstrate a compelling reason that justifies bail being granted. Ultimately, the respondent did not contend that O’Connell would be an unacceptable risk if the proposed conditions were imposed. However, it maintained that a compelling reason had not been established.
B. Background
B.1 Alleged offending
O’Connell landed in Melbourne on a flight from Singapore at approximately 9.30am on 18 July 2023. At approximately 10.20am, he arrived at the Melbourne Airport international arrivals hall with 1 black backpack and 1 small blue rectangular bag on wheels. O’Connell later collected 1 yellow “the North Face” branded bag and 1 large blue rectangular bag on wheels from the baggage claim.
Upon arrival at the marshal point in the international terminal, O’Connell was directed by an Australian Border Force officer to attend a secondary examination area. A full examination of O’Connell’s baggage was conducted and he was found to be in possession of the following:
(1)1 750ml glass bottle branded “Madre Mezcal” containing a colourless liquid.
(2)1 500ml purple bottle labelled “Aloe Vera Moisturiser” containing a quantity of liquid.
(3)3 clip-seal bags containing crystalline substances.
(4)3 brown bottles containing traces of a clear liquid.
(5)1 clip-seal bag containing white powder.
O’Connell’s baggage was seized and an Australian Border Force officer conducted chemical identification scans on the liquid contained in the “Madre Mezcal” bottle and the “Aloe Vera Moisturiser” bottle. Both returned presumptive positive results for GBL. The same officer conducted chemical identification scans on the powder and crystalline substances found in O’Connell’s possession. A presumptive positive result for ketamine was returned in respect of 1 of the clip-seal bags, and the substances in the other 3 clip-seal bags returned presumptive positive results for methamphetamine. The Australian Border Force supervisor on duty referred the matter to the Australian Federal Police.
O’Connell was subsequently cautioned and interviewed by police. During this interview, O’Connell stated, amongst other things, that the drugs were for his own personal use, that he did not intend for the drugs to be resold, that he had so much GBL because his friends did not take their share, and that he was remorseful for his actions. Although there were some possible inconsistencies in what was said by O’Connell, when read as a whole, the statement given by O’Connell at that time could only be described as appearing to be full and frank. At the conclusion of the interview, O’Connell was charged and bail was denied. On 19 July 2023, O’Connell appeared before the Magistrates’ Court and was remanded in custody to appear at a committal mention on 8 November 2023.
According to forensic analyses later conducted on the seized substances, O’Connell allegedly had 1260.2 grams of pure GBL,[1] 3.7 grams of methamphetamine,[2] 34.3 grams of pure 1,4-butanediol and 0.1 grams of pure ketamine in his possession at the time of his arrest.
[1]A commercial quantity of GBL as a border controlled drug is 1 kilogram: Criminal Code Regulations 2019 (Cth), sch 2, item 94.
[2]A marketable quantity of methamphetamine as a border controlled drug is 2 grams: Criminal Code Regulations, sch 2, item 121.
Between 22 August 2023 and 8 September 2023, the informant reviewed material extracted from a mobile telephone that was in O’Connell’s possession when he was arrested at Melbourne Airport on 18 July 2023. The extracted material shows that on 15 July 2022, text messages were sent from O’Connell to a contact known as “Mike Mcc” about purchasing “G”, which is believed by police to be a reference to GBL. When asked by “Mike Mcc” how much he wanted, O’Connell allegedly responded by stating, “Well, I want to get like a lot and send it to Sydney”. Later in the message thread, O’Connell allegedly stated, “I wonder should I get a litre", and then, “I’m trying to figure out (sic) to smuggle it”. The person identified as “Mike Mcc” asked, “Would you get it through easy enough?”, to which O’Connell allegedly replied, “Oh totally yeah, I can’t imagine there being any problem”.
B.2 Personal circumstances
O’Connell was born in Limerick, Ireland in 1990 and is currently 33 years old. He is 1 of 5 siblings and he grew up in a rural area. His older sister, Nora O’Connell (“Nora”), relocated to Australia in 2011 and attained Australian citizenship in January 2017. At the age of 18, O’Connell moved to Galway and obtained a bachelor’s degree in arts from Galway University, majoring in psychology. He was subsequently employed by Hilton Hotels & Resorts in sales, after which he worked in various advertising and marketing roles in Ireland.
In 2019, O’Connell travelled to Sydney on a working holiday visa. He originally stayed with Nora before finding his own accommodation. He lived in Sydney from that time until he was arrested in July 2023. In 2020, O’Connell applied for and was granted a skilled migrant visa, which was sponsored by his then employer. Later, O’Connell’s visa sponsorship was transferred to his most recent employer, for whom he worked up until the time he was remanded in custody.
Nora continues to live in Sydney and works on a full-time basis as a nurse. She was in attendance at court today. Nora has visited O’Connell in custody and speaks to him on the telephone on a regular basis. She has offered $150,000 as surety in support of his application for bail.
O’Connell is in a committed relationship with someone who he met in early 2020 (“the Partner”). The Partner relocated to Australia from the United Kingdom in 2016 and obtained Australian citizenship in October 2021. Prior to O’Connell’s arrest, he and the Partner resided together in Sydney. The Partner has visited O’Connell in custody on a number of occasions and the pair speak on the telephone twice daily.
The Partner resides in Sydney but has indicated that he is prepared to move to Melbourne to support O’Connell. On 3 November 2023, O’Connell applied for a partner visa sponsored by the Partner in a step towards permanently settling in Australia.
Material extracted from the mobile telephone found in O’Connell’s possession at the time of his arrest includes evidence of the following exchanges:
(1)On 23 June 2023, when discussing the purchase of GBL in the United States, O’Connell is alleged to have sent a text message to an associate which stated, “The G is mainly for me, Porgie, Nico and our mate Angus”. The informant deposed that he believes “Porgie” is a reference to the Partner.
(2)On 24 June 2023, a text message was sent from a mobile phone registered in the Partner’s name to O’Connell stating, “Where’s ur (sic) drugs”. O’Connell allegedly responded, “In the black case which is in (sic) big case”. The Partner responded, “and the g?”. O’Connell allegedly replied, “G – I don’t know, but don’t worry if you can’t”.
(3)On 17 July 2023, O’Connell allegedly sent the Partner a text message stating, “Porgie – you didn’t take that half litre of G ever did you?”. O’Connell later allegedly sent a further message which stated, “I’m [c]arrying it all back with me and [to be honest], Id (sic) prefer to keep the full thing, if you can pick up some from London before you return?”.
The Partner, who was also in attendance at court today, has been deeply affected by O’Connell’s present situation. The Partner has informed O’Connell of his commitment to O’Connell’s rehabilitation and to continue to refrain from taking illicit substances himself.
O’Connell has no prior criminal history. However, despite maintaining full-time employment, in the 12 months prior to his arrest he developed an addiction to methamphetamine and GBL.
In support of O’Connell’s application for bail, it is proposed that he reside at a residential rehabilitation facility managed by Arrow Health for a period of 90 days. A letter from Marie Briffa (“Briffa”), forensic intake manager at Arrow Health, was provided to the court. Following a comprehensive 90-minute psychosocial addiction treatment evaluation, the clinical team at Arrow Health formed the view that O’Connell is a suitable candidate for their inpatient rehabilitation program.
During the assessment, it was observed that O’Connell presented as an individual who possessed a keen awareness of his current circumstances and exhibited a strong inclination towards introspection and self-improvement. Briffa explained that the Arrow Health inpatient program employs a therapeutic community-based treatment model, wherein peer interactions and community responsibilities constitute a fundamental aspect of the therapeutic process. Upon admission, residents undergo a comprehensive psychosocial and medical assessment to ascertain their unique requirements.
Treatment at Arrow Health includes individual counselling sessions, rostered community work tasks, attendance at 12-step fellowships such as Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous and participation in recovery-based study groups. In addition, the program requires twice weekly and random supervised urine screenings. The rehabilitation facility is under 24-hour staff supervision and is equipped with closed-circuit television surveillance.
Briffa explained that Arrow Health can accommodate a maximum of 20 residents. Currently, there is a bed available at Arrow Health for O’Connell to complete the 90-day rehabilitation treatment program.
At the hearing today, Briffa gave evidence consistent with her previous letter. She also gave an undertaking to the court in her own right and also on behalf of Arrow Health to immediately notify the informant if O’Connell was to commit any breach of a bail condition or of a condition of Arrow Health’s program. She also undertook to notify O’Connell’s family in those circumstances.
C. Legislation and principles
The charges against O’Connell include an offence under Schedule 2 of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).[3] It is common ground that O’Connell must therefore demonstrate that a compelling reason exists that justifies the grant of bail.[4]
[3]Sch 2, item 26. The quantity of GBL that is the subject of the offence against s 307.1(1) of the Criminal Code with which O’Connell is charged is less than the commercial quantity as defined by s 70(1) of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act: see Bail Act, sch 1, item 9.
[4]Bail Act, ss 4AA(3), 4C(1A).
The phrase “compelling reason” is not defined in the Bail Act. Whether an applicant is able to demonstrate a compelling reason involves consideration of all relevant circumstances. In short, a synthesis of all the factors must compel the conclusion that detention is not justified.[5] This will likely be shown if there is a “forceful, and therefore convincing, reason showing that, in all the circumstances, the continued detention of the applicant in custody [is] not justified”.[6] However, the compelling reason test does not require an applicant to show a reason that is irresistible or exceptional. Instead, a compelling reason might appropriately be described as a reason that is “difficult to resist”.[7]
[5]Re Ceylan [2018] VSC 36, [46] (Beach JA), cited with approval in Rodgers v The Queen [2019] VSCA 214, [43] (Beach, Kaye and Ashley JJA). It should be noted that the statutory test applicable in Re Ceylan [2018] VSC 36 was whether there was a compelling reason why an applicant’s detention in custody was not justified. Section 4C of the Bail Act requires a compelling reason “that justifies the grant of bail”. While the language is slightly different, the expression “compelling reason” remains. As such, it has been suggested that there is no reason to depart from prior analysis or holding concerning the proper construction of this phrase: see Re Alsulayhim [2018] VSC 570, [28] (Beach JA).
[6]Ibid, [47].
[7]Ibid. See also Rodgers v The Queen [2019] VSCA 214, [43]; Re Alsulayhim [2018] VSC 570, [29].
If the court is satisfied that a compelling reason exists, it must then consider whether the applicant presents an unacceptable risk of the kind referred to in section 4E(1)(a) of the Bail Act.[8]
[8]Bail Act, s 4D(1)(b).
If the court is satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk that an applicant would, for example, fail to surrender into custody in accordance with the conditions of her or his bail, then the court must refuse bail even if it is satisfied that the compelling reason test has been met.[9] The burden of proving that an applicant poses an unacceptable risk rests with the prosecution.[10] In assessing the risk, the court must take into account whether there are any conditions of bail that may be imposed to mitigate the risk.[11]
[9]Ibid, s 4E(1).
[10]Ibid, s 4E(2).
[11]Ibid, s 4E(3)(b).
In considering whether a compelling reason exists and whether an applicant poses an unacceptable risk of the kind referred to in section 4E(1)(a) of the Bail Act, the court must take into account the surrounding circumstances relevant to the matter. These include but are not limited to those set out in section 3AAA of the Bail Act,[12] namely:
[12]Ibid, ss 4C(3), 4E(3)(a).
…
(a)the nature and seriousness of the alleged offending, including whether it is a serious example of the offence;
(b) the strength of the prosecution case;
(c) the accused’s criminal history;
(d)the extent to which the accused has complied with the conditions of any earlier grant of bail;
(e) whether, at the time of the alleged offending, the accused –
(i) was on bail for another offence; or
(ii)was subject to a summons to answer to a charge for another offence; or
(iii) was at large awaiting trial for another offence; or
(iv) was released under a parole order; or
(v)was subject to a community correction order made in respect of, or was otherwise serving a sentence for, another offence;
…
(g)the accused’s personal circumstances, associations, home environment and background;
(h)any special vulnerability of the accused, including being … in ill health or having a cognitive impairment, an intellectual disability or a mental illness;
(i) the availability of treatment or bail support services;
…
(k)the length of time the accused is likely to spend in custody if bail is refused;
(l) the likely sentence to be imposed should the accused be found guilty of the offence with which the accused is charged;
…
Further, in interpreting and applying the Bail Act, the court is required to take into account the guiding principles set out in section 1B, including the importance of maximising the safety of the community, the presumption of innocence[13] and the right to liberty.[14]
[13]Obviously, the presumption of innocence has no applicability in circumstances where O’Connell has unequivocally indicated an intention to plead guilty.
[14]See Re Ceylan [2018] VSC 361, [31]-[32] (Beach JA).
Where the period of time in remand would likely exceed the sentence ultimately imposed, this is highly relevant to the determination of whether bail should be granted. Generally, absent any significant countervailing considerations, this factor alone may be considered a compelling reason justifying a grant of bail.[15] Even if it is not considered likely, but there is a real possibility that the remand period would exceed any sentence, this remains a relevant factor. Furthermore, if the grant of bail is likely to be in the community’s interest, this will be regarded as a compelling reason.[16]
[15]Re Johnstone (No 2) [2018] VSC 803, [18] (Beach JA).
[16]Re Gaylor [2019] VSC 46, [35], [40]-[41] (Riordan J).
D. Submissions
Counsel for O’Connell submitted that a combination of factors demonstrated a compelling reason in this case.
First, it was submitted that O’Connell’s lack of criminal history favoured the grant of bail.
Secondly, it was submitted that the intensive drug rehabilitation treatment available to O’Connell at Arrow Health would far outweigh any potential treatment O’Connell would receive in custody, and would enable O’Connell to address his significant addiction issues. It was noted that O’Connell would be subject to stringent requirements whilst undertaking the 90-day program.[17] Briffa’s sworn undertaking to the court on her behalf and on behalf of Arrow Health that the informant will be immediately notified of any breach of O’Connell’s bail conditions was also relied upon.
[17]See par 22 above.
Thirdly, a substantial surety has been offered by O’Connell’s sister Nora, in the sum of $150,000. The surety is made up of funds effectively pooled by Nora and other members of O’Connell’s family, who are reliant on those funds for their own financial needs.[18] Counsel for O’Connell submitted that for this reason, the existence of the surety reduces any risk of O’Connell seeking to flee the jurisdiction.
[18]Regard must be had to the means of a proposed surety: Bail Act, s 5AAB(3).
Fourthly, in light of time already served, there is a real possibility that O’Connell may receive a non-custodial sentence. It was submitted that the alleged offending the subject of this application is a low-level example of an otherwise serious offence. Counsel for O’Connell noted that the amount of GBL found in his possession was only 260.2 grams above the threshold of a commercial quantity. It was further submitted that no profit motive existed, and the alleged offending occurred in the context of addiction. In any event, the drug the subject of the head charge, GBL, is of low value and the financial reward derived from its sale would likely have been relatively small. O’Connell’s counsel noted that in the context of drug offending, the resale value of a drug is a relevant sentencing consideration.[19] To that end, counsel for O’Connell provided the court with a table of what were contended to be comparable cases and the sentence imposed in each case. If bail were to be refused, O’Connell will have served 225 days of pre-sentence detention at the date of his plea hearing.
[19]Director of Public Prosecutions v Maxwell (2013) 228 A Crim R 218, 226 [33] (Maxwell P, Weinberg and Priest JJA).
Fifthly, O’Connell has expressed a willingness to engage the services of EM BailSafe global positioning system monitoring. If imposed as a condition of bail, O’Connell would be required to wear a tamper-resistant global positioning system device capable of constantly monitoring and reporting on his movements. Access to the live data could be afforded to the informant.
Sixthly, it was submitted that O’Connell has strong social supports in Australia, including Nora, the Partner, and the extensive social network which he has developed since arriving in Australia in 2019. In further support of O’Connell’s application for bail, the director of a garage door opener company has indicated a willingness to employ O’Connell to work at his business’ Melbourne premises should the business have a need for employees at the time O’Connell is again available to work.
In response, the respondent submitted that O’Connell has not demonstrated that a compelling reason exists that justifies the grant of bail. The respondent submitted that while it may be accepted that offending involving GBL is less serious than offending involving more valuable drugs, this is nonetheless a serious example of the offence taking into account the fact that the quantity imported comfortably exceeded a commercial quantity. It was also noted that O’Connell was the sole person involved in the alleged offending, that the alleged offending was pre-meditated and brazen and that O’Connell did not possess the substance solely for his personal use.[20] Reliance was placed upon the fact that in his record of interview dated 18 July 2023, O’Connell stated that he intended to sell some of the GBL to his friends.
[20]See par 17 above.
Further, the respondent submitted that the maximum penalty for the head offence is life imprisonment and that this reflects the gravity of the offending. Furthermore, the quantity of methamphetamine found in O’Connell’s possession was nearly twice the marketable quantity which, it was submitted, elevated the seriousness of that offending. Moreover, the respondent submitted that it would be open to the sentencing judge to impose a custodial sentence that would exceed O’Connell’s pre-sentence detention. The respondent submitted that cases attracting non-custodial dispositions have tended to involve offending done for purely personal use or with unusually powerful mitigating factors.
E. Analysis
Taking into account the surrounding circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that a compelling reason exists that justifies the grant of bail. The factors relied on in support of this conclusion include:
(1)The risk of O’Connell endangering the community whilst on bail is low. He has no prior convictions, strong family supports and the imported drugs the subject of his alleged offending were predominantly for his own use.
(2)O’Connell has real prospects of rehabilitation. He is 33 years old and has an opportunity to participate in a 90-day intensive residential rehabilitation treatment program at Arrow Health.
(3)Although the grant of bail may expose the community to a short-term risk that O’Connell will reoffend whilst on bail, this risk appears to be slight. Further, keeping O’Connell on remand for a further period of time is unlikely to provide the intensive rehabilitation required to treat his addiction.
(4)When O’Connell pleads guilty, his behaviour on bail and any evidence of successful rehabilitation may assist the sentencing judge in determining the appropriate sentence to impose, including in light of the fact that his mandatory residence at Arrow Health is a form of quasi-custodial detention.
(5)A surety has been offered in the amount of $150,000. With the funds coming not only from Nora but also other members of O’Connell’s family in circumstances where considerable hardship would result if the funds were forfeited, this significantly reduces the risk that O’Connell would contemplate fleeing.
(6)There is a real possibility that O’Connell will receive a non-custodial sentence or a custodial sentence of a shorter duration than the time he is likely to spend on remand if bail were refused.[21]
(7)The guiding principles of the Bail Act outline that parliament recognises, among other considerations, the importance of maximising the safety of the community. This encompasses short term community safety whilst the accused is on bail and long term community safety once an offender is permanently released in the community.[22] O’Connell’s proposed attendance at Arrow Health accords with this guiding principle.
(8)Although the offer of electronic monitoring by EM BailSafe has not been accepted by the respondent as an appropriate condition and will not be imposed, it remains significant that O’Connell was willing to submit himself to such an imposition.
(9)In light of O’Connell’s indication that he will plead guilty, there is no question that consideration of the strength of the prosecution case is anything but absolute.
[21]Re Johnstone (No 2) [2018] VSC 803, [18] (Beach JA); Director of Public Prosecutions v Maxwell (2013) 228 A Crim R 218, 226-227 [33]-[35] (Maxwell P, Weinberg and Priest JJA). See also Director of Public Prosecutions v Singer [2020] VCC 1005; Director of Public Prosecutions v Ma [2019] VCC 301; Director of Public Prosecutions v Cua & Zoch [2016] VCC 872.
[22]Re Gaylor [2019] VSC 46, [40] (Riordan J).
In these circumstances, and including consideration of the surrounding circumstances, I am also of the view that any risk presented by O’Connell can be substantially ameliorated with appropriate conditions of bail. Although it is ultimately a matter for the court, it is significant that the respondent ultimately did not seek to establish that O’Connell would be an unacceptable risk if the proposed conditions were imposed. The absence of factors pointing to an applicant presenting an unacceptable risk has often been regarded as important in this context.[23] On the issue of risk, it is of particular significance that O’Connell has no criminal record and there is no history to suggest that he is likely to seek to obtain false travel documents (or for that matter, that he would have the means of doing so).
[23]Re Gloury-Hyde [2018] VSC 393, [30] (Priest JA).
It is proposed that O’Connell will spend all of his time up to 2 days before his attendance at the County Court of Victoria for his plea hearing in the residential facility provided by Arrow Health. Briffa gave evidence that Arrow Health would be willing to accept O’Connell for a further day so that he would remain at Arrow Health until the day before he is required to attend at the County Court. This means that O’Connell would be under the supervision of Arrow Health and subject to its strict conditions up to the day before his plea hearing.
Thus, the conditions of bail will place significant restrictions on O’Connell and will assist with his rehabilitation. In light of the undertaking given to the court by Briffa (in her own right and also on behalf of Arrow Health) to immediately report any breach of the conditions to be imposed, any risk posed by O’Connell is substantially reduced. Further, these conditions are likely to render the risk of O’Connell failing to surrender into custody in accordance with the conditions of bail as minimal.
F. Conclusion
Accordingly, I will admit O’Connell to bail on his own undertaking and with a surety from Nora in the amount of $150,000, on the following conditions, namely that he must:
(1)Reside at the premises of Arrow Health located at 8 Carlisle Street, Woodend, Victoria from 28 November 2023 to 27 February 2024.
(2)Participate in the Arrow Health residential treatment program from 28 November 2023 to 27 February 2024 as directed, and otherwise comply with all lawful instructions and directions of Arrow Health staff, including to:
(a)undergo urine drug screening as directed;
(b)not leave the premises of Arrow Health unless accompanied by an Arrow Health staff member or a nominee of Arrow Health; and
(c)receive only visitors that are approved by Arrow Health.
(3)Notify the informant of any change of residential address 7 days prior to the change of address.
(4)Report every Monday, Wednesday and Friday between the hours of 9.00am and 5.00pm to the officer in charge at Kyneton Police Station or her or his nominee until 27 February 2024.
(5)Not use a drug of dependence within the meaning of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act, or consume alcohol, except with the permission or on the advice of a legally qualified medical practitioner.
(6)Surrender any valid passport to the informant within 24 hours of release from custody and not apply for, or possess, any other passport or travel document.
(7)Not attend any point of international departure.
(8)Not leave the State of Victoria.
(9)Not contact, directly or indirectly, any witness for the prosecution other than the informant.
(10)Attend the County Court of Victoria at Melbourne at 10.00am on 28 February 2024, and there surrender himself, and not depart without leave of the court, and if leave is given, return at the time specified by the court and again surrender himself into custody.
9
0