Re Ridge
[2023] VSC 509
•28 August 2023
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2023 0178
IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by JOSHUA RIDGE
BETWEEN:
| JOSHUA RIDGE | Applicant |
| v | |
| VICTORIA POLICE | Respondent |
---
JUDGE: | Gorton J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 25 August 2023 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 28 August 2023 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Re Ridge |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VSC 509 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Schedule 2 offence – Applicant alleged to have committed offences while on bail – Whether exceptional circumstances justify granting bail – Whether unacceptable risk – Bail refused – Bail Act 1977 (Vic).
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant | Ms L Ristivojevic | Marcevski Lawyers Pty Ltd |
| For the Respondent | Mr L McAuliffe | Victoria Police |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Background................................................................................................................................... 1
B. The need for ‘exceptional circumstances’ that justify the grant of bail............................ 4
B.1The matters to be considered............................................................................................... 4
The nature and seriousness of the alleged offending..................................................... 4
The strength of the prosecution case................................................................................ 5
The applicant’s criminal history........................................................................................ 6
The extent of compliance with earlier grants of bail...................................................... 7
Whether the applicant was already on bail at the time................................................. 7
Family violence intervention orders................................................................................. 8
The applicant’s personal circumstances, associations, home environment and background.................................................................................................................................... 9
The availability of treatment............................................................................................ 10
The views of the alleged victim....................................................................................... 12
The length of time in custody.......................................................................................... 12
The likely sentence if found guilty.................................................................................. 12
B.2Conclusion — No Exceptional Circumstances................................................................ 13
C. Is there an ‘unacceptable risk’?............................................................................................... 14
D. Disposition.................................................................................................................................. 15
HIS HONOUR:
A. Background
The applicant, Mr Joshua Ridge, who is now 31 years old, seeks a grant of bail in relation to 22 charges preferred by Senior Constable Williams.[1] The charges relate to events said to have taken place on 9 August 2022, 15 January 2023, 18 March 2023 and 22 March 2023. He was on bail at the time. Many of the offences involve his ex-de facto partner, ‘the complainant’. It seems that they had commenced a relationship around mid-2020 and had been living together in Aintree in Melbourne’s west until around September 2022 when the complainant for a short period resided with her mother and stepfather and then moved back in with the applicant, before ending their relationship around January 2023. The case against the applicant may be summarised as follows (and, of course, it must be remembered that these are allegations only and the applicant is entitled to the presumption of innocence):
[1]The applicant was charged with 17 offences on 22 March 2023, and a further five offences on 15 August 2023.
(a) On 9 August 2022, the applicant forcibly broke into the garage at the house where the complainant was then staying with her stepfather in Werribee. He was found by her stepfather and left without the use of any further force. The applicant’s father later paid for damage caused to a vehicle in the garage. The alleged incident led to a charge of entering a private place without authority (charge 1);
(b) On 15 January 2023, the applicant met with the complainant at a shopping centre in Point Cook. The meeting was arranged for the purpose of the applicant returning to the complainant some of her belongings. The applicant did not have her belongings with him but required the complainant to come back to the Aintree address to obtain them, and she did so. It is alleged that the applicant then took her mobile phone and hit the complainant over the head causing a laceration to her forehead, broke a finger on her left hand, physically prevented her from leaving, and was generally verbally and physically abusive. He then said he would come with her on the drive back to Werribee to make sure she did not call the police and, on the way to her car, showed her a sawn-off shotgun that was in the house and told her to remember that he had it. On the drive, he repeatedly punched her from the passenger seat and forced her to withdraw money from an ATM and to give it to him. He then made her return to the Aintree address, where he made multiple threats to kill her, her dog and her family. He ultimately let her leave but retained her mobile phone. When the complainant arrived back at Werribee, her mother took her to the hospital emergency department. The hospital stitched up the cut on her forehead and operated on the broken bone in her finger (which was described as ‘deformed’ in the emergency department clinical record). The hospital also noted multiple bruises on her left arm. There are photographs of these injuries. The laceration on the forehead is quite long, the complainant’s finger looks quite deformed, and there is visible bruising on her left arm. The complainant initially told her mother and the hospital that she had been ‘jumped’. She subsequently said that the applicant had insisted that she do this. She only told her mother that it was the applicant who had assaulted her after she returned to the Werribee house from the hospital. These alleged events led to charges of intentionally causing injury (charge 2), recklessly causing injury (charge 3), assault (charge 4), assault with an instrument (charge 5) and making a threat to kill (charge 6);
(c) On 18 March 2023, the applicant and the complainant met by coincidence in front of a Nando’s restaurant in Laverton North. It is alleged that the applicant was verbally abusive, headbutted the complainant, threatened to burn down her mother’s house and kill her dog, and took her mobile phone and keys. He drove off leaving her, without her keys, at the restaurant. There is footage of that incident that captures what appears to be a headbutt and other aggressive behaviour. The complainant used someone else’s phone to call her mother, and her stepfather came to pick her up. She then reported these matters and the earlier events to the Werribee Police Station. A photograph was taken of the injury to her forehead. This injury is not obvious. These alleged events led to charges of assault (charge 7), theft (charge 8), making a threat to damage property (charge 9) and driving while disqualified (charge 10). The complainant’s keys and phone were left on the doormat the next evening;
(d) On 22 March 2023, the police went to the Aintree address, arrested the applicant, and searched the premises including his vehicle. In the house, the police found cannabis seedlings, plastic tubs and a grow tent, other equipment associated with the growth of cannabis plants, and an extendable baton. In the car, they found a sawn-off shotgun wrapped in a towel, ammunition, multiple driver’s licences and other identity documents including Medicare cards in various names, counterfeit money and what appeared to be items used to manufacture counterfeit money, another extendable baton, and imitation car registration plates. Some of the identification cards carried the applicant’s photograph but were in different names. These alleged events led to charges of possession of a firearm (as a ‘prohibited person’) (charge 11), possession of ammunition without a licence (charge 12), cultivation of a narcotic plant (charge 13), possession of a prohibited weapon (charges 14, 18), retaining stolen goods (charge 15), altering registration plates (charge 16), committing an indictable offence while on bail (charge 17), possessing counterfeit money (charge 19), altering licences (charge 20), having false documents which he knew to be false (charge 21) and dealing with property suspected to be the proceeds of crime (charge 22). The applicant was arrested. He gave a ‘no comment’ interview. He was remanded in custody. He disputes the lawfulness of the search and in particular the search of the car.
These charges are listed in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria on 14 November 2023 for a special hearing relating to the validity of the search, and then on 11 December 2023 for a contested hearing. That is, between 3½ and 4 months away.
On 27 July 2022 (that is, before these events), the applicant was sentenced in the Magistrates’ Court to three month’s imprisonment for offences including theft, cultivating narcotic plants and dealing with stolen goods. He appealed and was granted bail by the Magistrates’ Court pending the hearing of that appeal. Accordingly, the applicant was on bail at the time of the above alleged events. On 24 March 2023, having been refused bail by the Magistrates’ Court for the new charges he then faced, the applicant abandoned his appeal to the County Court. The applicant thereafter commenced to serve the three-month term of imprisonment previously ordered. This was the first time that the applicant had been imprisoned.
B. The need for ‘exceptional circumstances’ that justify the grant of bail.
Because the applicant is accused of committing a schedule 2 offence while on bail for a schedule 2 offence, the ‘exceptional circumstances test’ applies.[2] The ‘exceptional circumstances test’ requires the refusal of bail unless it is established that ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist that justify the grant of bail.[3] In considering whether exceptional circumstances exist, account must be taken of the ‘surrounding circumstances’.[4] The ‘surrounding circumstances’ are all relevant circumstances including the list of matters set out in s 3AAA of the Bail Act 1977.
B.1 The matters to be considered
The nature and seriousness of the alleged offending[5]
[2]Bail Act 1977 (Vic) s 4AA(2)(c)(i).
[3]Ibid s 4A(1A).
[4]Ibid s 4A(3).
[5]Ibid s 3AAA(a).
I accept that the alleged offending is not at the most serious end of the spectrum, in particular because the physical injuries that the complainant has suffered do not seem to be likely to cause her permanent physical damage (beyond a scar on her forehead). But the injuries were, nonetheless, significant and were caused by the use of significant force and were associated with violent behaviour over a period of time. Further, in my view the threat to kill allegations are more serious than they might otherwise be because they were made in circumstances where the accused was someone willing to inflict physical injury and to engage in other coercive behaviours and had access to firearms.
The strength of the prosecution case[6]
[6]Ibid s 3AAA(b).
There is little doubt that the complainant suffered injury to her forehead and to her finger and to her arms. The injuries have been photographed. The applicant points to the fact that the complainant did not immediately blame him for the injuries and that there are inconsistencies in parts of her statements. The respondent notes the complainant’s assertion that the idea to say she had been ‘jumped’, rather than assaulted by the applicant, was the applicant’s idea and an idea that he effectively imposed on her. It is not suggested that anything was stolen from her and, it seems, the complainant still had her handbag with her, which might be surprising if she were ‘jumped’. Although the headbutt does not appear to have caused much physical damage — or at least, not much that can be seen on a photo — the video footage does appear to show that the headbutt took place. These matters cannot be determined on a bail application, but it cannot be said, in my view, that the prosecution case for the physical assaults is weak.
The applicant also contends that there is a triable issue as to the lawfulness of the search particularly of the car in the course of which the firearm, ammunition and various identification documents were found. The search was said to be permitted by s 159 of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008. That provision allows a search if a police officer is satisfied that there are grounds for issuing a family violence safety notice against a person. In those circumstances, the police officer may search, without warrant, any premises at which the person resides and a vehicle registered in the person’s name. This vehicle was registered in the applicant’s father’s name, not the applicant’s name, although it seems that the applicant regularly used the car. The applicant intends to argue that this makes the search unlawful. The respondent intends to argue that the power to search the ‘premises’ allows a search of a vehicle parked on the premises. The car was on the driveway, not on the street. It is not appropriate that I express any views on the relative merits of the two arguments, as the determination of that issue has been set down for hearing in the Magistrates’ Court in November this year. But it cannot be said, in my view, that the prosecution’s argument that the search was lawful, and thus the charge of possession of the goods found in the car, is weak.
There was another person who lived at the premises, and this raises a possibility that it was that person, and not the applicant, who owned the plants and equipment. There may also be an issue as to whether the ‘cultivation’ can be proved. But even so, it cannot, again, be said that the prosecution’s case on the drugs charges is weak.
The applicant’s criminal history[7]
[7]Ibid s 3AAA(c).
The applicant does not have any criminal history that predates 2020.
In February 2021, the applicant was sentenced in the Magistrates’ Court to a 15-month community correction order (‘CCO’) and fined $1,000 for charges of making a threat to kill, a threat to inflict serious injury (two charges) and to commit indictable offences whilst on bail (three charges). The material before me suggests that the offences relate to allegations that in June and October 2020 the applicant attended his ex-partner’s house, coerced her into his car, drove to a remote paddock, threatened to kill her if she did not answer his questions, and then later demanded money from her and threatened to cut her tongue out. The applicant pleaded guilty, but the agreed summary was not before me. The applicant contended that in those circumstances I could not rely on the particulars identified above and was limited to the description of the offences to which he pleaded guilty. I am prepared to proceed on that basis, and so I limit my consideration to the fact that in 2021 the applicant pleaded guilty to offences including threatening to kill and to inflict serious injury. These are, of course, serious charges.
In October 2021, the applicant was sentenced in the Sunshine Magistrates’ Court to a $650.00 fine and had his driver’s license cancelled and disqualified for 24 months for charges of drug driving, careless driving, possessing a prohibited weapon (two charges), possessing methylamphetamine and committing an indictable offence whilst on bail (three charges). The offences relate to events in June and August 2020, first involving the applicant, without a license, driving erratically while on drugs. When he was arrested an extendable baton was found in his car. In August 2020, a search warrant was executed at the applicant’s house and methylamphetamine and an unspecified weapon was found inside.
As noted in para 3 above, in July 2022, the applicant was sentenced in the Magistrates’ Court to an aggregate term of three months’ imprisonment and fined $500.00 for charges of cultivating narcotic plants (cannabis), theft, handling stolen goods, and having in custody a false document. The offences related to a search warrant being executed at the applicant’s house in June 2019, during which multiple cannabis plants were found, along with 43 false drivers licenses and Medicare cards, and three stolen bank cards. The applicant appealed, was granted bail pending the hearing of that appeal, and the appeal had not been heard at the time of the offences presently before me. After he was charged with the offences presently before me, the applicant abandoned his appeal.
It is significant that the applicant had not, before being arrested for the offences presently before me, been in custody.
The extent of compliance with earlier grants of bail[8]
[8]Ibid s 3AAA(d).
The applicant has been compliant with earlier grants of bail in the sense that it is not suggested that he failed to attend Court as and when required. However, he has not been compliant in that he has committed offences while on bail. Further, the drugs and identity document charges he now faces seem similar to the offences for which he was on bail at the time.
Whether the applicant was already on bail at the time[9]
[9]Ibid s 3AAA(e).
As noted above, the applicant was on bail at the time of the charges presently under consideration.
Family violence intervention orders[10]
[10]Ibid s 3AAA(f).
Allegations have been made against the applicant in the past, but he has not been found guilty of breaching any intervention orders:
(a) In October 2019, the applicant’s ex-partner reported to police that she observed the applicant’s van at various locations she had attended that day, and that the van later cut in front of her in traffic, braked suddenly, and then reversed into her car. The applicant was charged in relation to the incident, but the charges were later struck-out.
(b) In October 2020, the applicant’s ex-partner reported to police that the applicant had attend her house and became aggressive when discussing their shared dog. She reported that the applicant jumped her fence, smashed a rear door, entered the house, pushed her, and then took the dog. The applicant was charged in relation to the incident, but the charges were later struck-out.
(c) In September 2021, the applicant’s ex-partner reported the applicant contacting her repeatedly in breach of a then active family violence intervention order, attempting to log in to a number of the complainant’s online accounts, and transferring money to himself from her bank account. The complainant did not make a statement to police and no charges were authorised.
Because no findings were made against the applicant, I place little or no weight on these matters.
On 23 March 2023, an interim family violence intervention order was made with the complainant as the affected family member. The police are considering charging the applicant with breaches of this order in circumstances that are potentially significant. It is contended that on 14 May 2023 the applicant was visited, when in custody, by his father and an ‘associate’. There was then a series of telephone calls between the applicant and the associate in which the applicant asked, or reminded, the associate to carry out a task that he was to perform that involved sending messages to people including someone called ‘Matt’, and then a telephone conversation in which the associate said that he had done so. Coinciding with these communications, someone sent photographs of the complainant using drugs to three people including her employer and a person called ‘Matt’. This led to the complainant losing her job. The complainant contends that the applicant had previously threatened to send such photos to her boss in the event that she sent him to prison. The police are in the process of finalising a brief for approval for the laying of charges, but no charges have yet been laid.
Despite the fact that charges have not yet been laid, and of course nothing has been proved, these allegations are relevant and significant.
The applicant’s personal circumstances, associations, home environment and background[11]
[11]Ibid s 3AAA(g).
The applicant does not claim to have had a deprived or abusive childhood. He finished year 12, but encountered drugs during his late teens, initially using small amounts of MDMA for recreational purposes, but later diversifying into other substances and eventually becoming addicted to cocaine and methamphetamine. The applicant also reports struggling with his mental health, having been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (‘PTSD’) following a home invasion in or around 2018 or 2019. He has lived in Victoria his entire life and it was not suggested that he was a flight risk.
He has worked variously as an apprentice electrician (he did not complete his apprenticeship), in property maintenance, and as a self-employed delivery driver. This last employment came to an end when his licence was disqualified in October 2021. He has not been gainfully employed, it seems, since then. He has produced a letter in which BK Labour Hire Pty Ltd indicates that it can provide him casual employment as a labourer in the construction industry.
The applicant’s aunt has offered to have him live with her in the event that he is granted bail. The respondent accepted that, if bail were granted, that would be an appropriate home environment. I am prepared to assume that the applicant’s aunt is a capable and well-intentioned woman. It does not follow, of course, that she would be expected or able to monitor the applicant's movements or activities each day, save that she would be able to ascertain whether he was breaking any curfew imposed on him and, probably, if he engaged in drug-affected or otherwise concerning behaviour in her presence.
The availability of treatment[12]
[12]Ibid s 3AAA(i).
If granted bail, the applicant proposes to participate in a 12-week outpatient program run by BailSafe Australia, a private outpatient rehabilitation, treatment and monitoring program for adults on bail. He has had a preliminary assessment with a nurse and BailSafe Australia has indicated willingness to accept him into the program. The program would provide him with access to a care-team comprised of a general practitioner, a psychologist, a counsellor, and a case manager. During the course of the program, it is proposed that the applicant would:
(a) meet weekly with his case manager, who would coordinate his overall care and conduct regular reviews of his progress;
(b) meet with his general practitioner on three occasions for the purpose of mental health assessment, medication review and general care;
(c) participate in 10 one-on-one psychoeducation sessions, to increase awareness of causes, symptoms and treatment for diagnosed conditions, as well as relapse prevention tools;
(d) participate in 10 group therapy sessions, with a focus on psychological tools and strategies for managing mental health;
(e) participate in 12 narcotics anonymous meetings, targeted specifically for those with comorbid mental health and substance use disorders;
(f) participate in daily mental health activities through a digital platform;
(g) participate in weekly surveys to track progress;
(h) participate in twice-weekly supervised urine drug screens; and
(i) be subjected to continuous electronic monitoring via a GPS tracking device.
With the exception of supervised urine drug screens, all meetings, monitoring and supervision would be conducted remotely, with no face-to-face contact between the applicant and his care-team.
Mr Jackson Oppy, the owner of BailSafe Australia, gave oral evidence. He was an impressive witness. BailSafe Australia currently has 10 patients who have on them the tamper-proof GPS tracking devices. There is also tracking through telephones. It was not clear whether these were persons facing charges that involved violence such as threats to kill and the unlawful possession of weapons. More significantly, however, Mr Oppy accepted that although the tracking system BailSafe Australia operated could produce ‘alerts’ by SMS or email when certain events happened (which could include, I assume, a person leaving a certain geographic area, not attending a scheduled on-line meeting or breaking a curfew), BailSafe Australia was not set up as a 24-hour monitoring system as such. For example, if an alert were received after business hours, there was no person whose job it was to deal with those alerts on an emergency or quasi-emergency basis. The system could be set up to send notifications to an informant but, again, there was no process of follow up or the like in the event that, say, the informant were off duty. Although the tracking system identified where people had been, it was not intended to be an alarm system whereby personnel were immediately alerted if an alert were sent.
It is worth recalling, too, as noted above, that in February 2021 the applicant underwent a 15-month community corrections order that included assessment, treatment and rehabilitation for drug abuse and dependency. That would have finished in about May 2022. This program did not, it seems, result in any significant reduction in the applicant’s level of drug use. It cannot be said that the applicant has never been treated in the past, so it cannot be said that there is a high likelihood that the BailSafe Australia program would allow him to get on top of his substance abuse issues. Further, even if it did, it would not do so immediately.
The views of the alleged victim[13]
[13]Ibid s 3AAA(j).
The complainant contends that the applicant has threatened to harm her and her family members and has demonstrated a willingness to be violent. She is concerned that if the applicant is released on bail he would attempt to locate her and ‘want revenge’ and she is concerned for her safety and the safety of her family members.
The length of time in custody[14]
[14]Ibid s 3AAA(k).
The applicant has been in custody since 22 March 2023. Because he then abandoned his appeal against his earlier three-month sentence, he served that time. This means that he has effectively been in custody only on remand for these charges since about 22 June 2023. Assuming that the contested hearing goes ahead in December, he will have been in custody for a period of some nine months, three months served as a sentence in a separate matter.
The likely sentence if found guilty[15]
[15]Ibid s 3AAA(l).
If the applicant is found guilty of the firearm’s offences, it was accepted that he will likely receive a custodial sentence of 12 months or more. He contended that if he were found guilty only of the assaults and threats and drug offences, any custodial sentence would probably be less than six months. The respondent disagreed. In assessing what sentence the applicant might receive if the charges are proved, the Court would have to have regard to the injuries that the complainant suffered and the violent and abusive circumstances in which they were inflicted. In assessing the sentence that the applicant might receive if found guilty of cultivating the marijuana plants, the Court would have to bear in mind that he was, at the time of that offence, on bail for the same thing.
Having regard to these matters, the likelihood that the applicant would be found guilty but sentenced in December 2023 to a lesser period than the time which he had by then served is, although not remote, not great.
B.2 Conclusion — No Exceptional Circumstances
The exceptional circumstances test may be demonstrated by a single circumstance or combination of circumstances united to produce a situation that is something other than ordinary, that is exceptional. The test is stringent, but not impossible to meet.[16]
[16]See, eg, Re Gentile [2021] VSC 467 [43] (Taylor J).
In this case, the exceptional circumstances test is not met. The period of delay prior to contested hearing is not excessive or likely significantly (if at all) to exceed any sentence imposed if convicted. The case against the applicant cannot be said to be weak. The applicant has a limited past history of offending and this is the first time that he has been in custody, but the past history of offending he does have is significant and of a similar nature to the charges he now faces to the extent that it includes threats to kill and to inflict injury. It is not suggested that the applicant will suffer more than others do as a result of his incarceration. He has no dependents that rely on him to provide for them who will suffer if he is not granted bail.[17] He has some anxiety and PTSD, but that is not particularly unusual. He has committed offences while on bail, and he was on bail at the time of these charges.
[17]Cf, eg, Roberts v R [2021] VSCA 28, [9], [47], [49] (Maxwell P, Niall and Emerton JJA).
If granted bail, the applicant will have the ability to live with his aunt who, I am satisfied, will provide a stable home environment. But it is not the lack of a stable home environment that is responsible for the applicant’s past and presently-alleged behaviour. The fact that bail might also be coupled with a treatment program with BailSafe Australia does not by itself render the circumstances exceptional, particularly when the applicant has in relatively recent times undergone a 15-month treatment program that, it seems, has not produced any ongoing improvements.
Because the exceptional circumstances test is not met, the application for the grant of bail must be refused.
C. Is there an ‘unacceptable risk’?
If exceptional circumstances did exist that justify the grant of bail, the ‘unacceptable risk’ test would then apply. That test requires the refusal of bail if it is established that there is an unacceptable risk that the applicant would, if released on bail, endanger the safety or welfare of any person, commit an offence while on bail, interfere with a witness or fail to surrender into custody in accordance with the conditions of bail.[18] In considering whether such a risk is an unacceptable risk account must be taken, again, of the ‘surrounding circumstances’.[19]
[18]Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 4D and 4E.
[19]Ibid s 4E(3).
Because family violence intervention orders have been made against the applicant, consideration must also be given to whether, if the applicant were released on bail, there would be a risk that the applicant would commit family violence and whether that risk could be mitigated by the imposition of a condition or by the making of a family violence intervention order.
It is convenient to consider these matters, notwithstanding the conclusion that the exceptional circumstances test is not satisfied.
There is an unacceptable risk that the applicant would endanger the safety of the complainant or members of her family if released on bail. The allegations that, whilst in custody and shortly after the making of a family violence intervention order, the applicant took steps to have photographs of the complainant taking drugs sent to her employer in order, it may be assumed, to cause her to lose her job (and embarrassment), is troubling. The fact that charges have not yet laid was explained by Detective Acting Sergeant King, who gave oral evidence, and explained that there had been delays in obtaining the necessary statements but that the charges were in the process of being prepared. There is no reason to think that those charges will not be laid in due course. They are, again, untested allegations and the presumption of innocence must not be forgotten. That said, if true, they reveal a wish and preparedness on the part of the applicant to harm the complainant and to exert power or control over her, even from behind bars, that give credence to her fears that he would take the matter further if given the opportunity to do so.
This is also to be evaluated in circumstances where a sawn-off shotgun with ammunition was found in a car the applicant used inside a bag that included identification documentation that related to him. Further, even if that search were unlawful, the complainant gave evidence to the effect that the applicant showed her a gun and told her to remember that he had one when he was attempting to control her behaviour, and that in October 2021 he pleaded guilty to possessing a ‘prohibited weapon’. These matters create a situation where it could be assumed that, if bail were granted, the applicant probably could, if he wished, locate firearms or other weapons.
The conditions suggested, such as living with his aunt, accepting a curfew and engaging in the BailSafe Australia program, would not adequately guard against that risk. Nor would the making of any additional intervention order, or the fact that the applicant would be on bail for these offences, given that he was on bail when at the time of these alleged offences.
D. Disposition
For the above reasons, bail is refused.
0
2
0