Re Sidi
[2021] VSC 759
•12 November 2021
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2021 0287
| IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) |
| - and – |
| IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by Sidi SIDI |
---
JUDGE: | Lasry J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 12 November 2021 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 12 November 2021 |
DATE OF REVISED REASONS: | 18 November 2021 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Re Sidi |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2021] VSC 759 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW — Application for bail — Charges of armed robbery, recklessly causing injury, assault, obtaining financial advantage and property by deception and possessing cannabis — Alleged offending occurred while applicant on parole and on bail for other matters — Delay – Applicant’s youth — Exceptional circumstances established — Unacceptable risk not demonstrated — Bail granted with conditions — Bail Act 1977 (Vic) s 1B, s 3AAA, s 4AA, s 4A, s 4D, s 4E; Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) s 333.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant | Mr Daniel McGlone | Emma Turnbull Lawyers |
| For the Respondent | Ms Georgia McMaster | Office of Public Prosecutions |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
This is an application for bail by Sidi Sidi (aka Shehke) (‘the applicant’). He is 21 years old and has been on remand since 3 February 2021, a little over nine months at the time of this application, when he was arrested and charged with the following 14 charges brought by Detective Senior Constable Monica Allen (‘the informant Allen matter’):
(a) armed robbery (4 counts);[1]
[1]Contrary to s 75A of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
(b) commit indictable offence whilst on bail (2 counts);[2]
[2]Contrary to s 30B of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).
(c) recklessly causing injury;[3]
[3]Contrary to s 18 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
(d) unlawful assault;[4]
[4]Contrary to s 23 of the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic).
(e) obtain financial advantage by deception (2 counts);[5]
[5]Contrary to s 82 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
(f) obtain property by deception;[6]
[6]Contrary to s 81 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
(g) attempt to obtain financial advantage by deception;[7]
(h) attempted armed robbery;[8] and
(i) possessing cannabis.[9]
[7]Contrary to s 321M of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
[8]Ibid.
[9]Contrary to s 73 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic).
The applicant applied for and was refused bail in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 11 October 2021 on the basis that he had failed to establish exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of bail.
This matter is next listed for a directions hearing in the Melbourne County Court on 4 February 2022.
The alleged offending
The prosecution allege the applicant and an unknown co-offender were involved in five separate incidents on 3 February 2021 involving six complainants, all of whom were unknown to the offenders.
Incident 1
At 1:00am, HM and LA were approached at the intersection of Haines and Errol Streets in North Melbourne by the applicant and a co-offender. The applicant is alleged to have grabbed LA from behind as the co-offender flashed a ‘very shiny’ knife approximately 30 cm in length and with a design on the handle in his belt and said ‘what have you got?’. HD’s Google Pixel 3 phone and LA’s wallet, bank cards and iPhone were then stolen. A short time later HM and LA described the offenders to police as being of African appearance and in their early 20s. The applicant was described as being between 5’9” and 5’11”, wearing a green face mask and green jacket and the co-accused was described as being about 6’2” with short frizzy black hair, wearing a black face mask and black jacket.
Incident 2
At 1:10am, MS was walking along Courtney Street in North Melbourne. He was approached by two men, one wearing a maroon cap and sportswear who the prosecution alleged is the applicant, and another wearing a dark hoodie and black pants who was approximately 6’2”, slim and in his late teens or early 20s who the prosecution alleged is the unknown co-offender.
The co-offender asked MS about getting the bus to the city and then showed him a knife tucked into his pants, demanded he empty his pockets and backpack and said ‘hurry up or I am going to have to hurt you’. The applicant pulled an iPhone 8 from MS’s pocket and told him to log out of his Apple account before both men left with his phone.
As MS walked toward North Melbourne Police Station, he saw the men run after another male ‘possibly of Indian descent’.
Incident 3
At 1:15am, IM was walking through the intersection of Courtney and Harcourt Streets in North Melbourne when approached by two men the prosecution allege to be the applicant and unknown co-offender. IM described the men as being 20-30 years old, thin and wearing dark hoodies and pants, with one described as being between 5’11” and 6’ tall. The co-offender asked IM what time the last bus was before demanding his phone. When IM refused, the men pushed him against a fence and punched him numerous times to the chest and face, resulting in scratches to IM’s shoulder and swelling to his face. IM broke free and the applicant and co-offender ran to a dark coloured hatchback and drove away.
Incident 4
At 1:30am, BS was walking north on Leveson Street, North Melbourne when he was approached by two men of African appearance. He described one, who the prosecution allege is the applicant, as wearing a black face mask, a camouflage hooded jumper and black runners. He described the other, who the prosecution allege is the unknown co-offender, as thin and wearing a black jumper, face mask and sneakers. The co-accused asked BS for the way to the city and then put his arm around him stating ‘I have a knife’. While flashing a knife, the co-offender demanded BS’s belongings. After BS handed over his iPhone, wallet and house keys, the applicant opened BS’s wallet and took his bank card. The co-offender then forced BS to increase his withdrawal limit and then reset his phone. The co-offender punched BS in the face before both men left.
BS went home and called police and later identified five unauthorised transactions on his bank account, including two payments totalling $10,200 to ‘Sidi Sidi’ made at 1:51 am and 2:01am using PayID and the mobile number [redacted], a $500 cardless cash withdrawal and a transfer to Skye Angel Turnbull for a sum of $3,865.
Incident 5
At 1:32am, the prosecution allege that CCTV shows the applicant and co-offender getting out of a silver Audi SUV parked on Albert Street in Footscray to use an ATM. MA walked past the co-offender, whom MA described as being African, approximately 5’11” tall, thin and in his 20s wearing a black hoodie, face mask and pants, and was asked to help the co-offender withdraw money. The co-offender, joined by the applicant, began walking with MA away from the ATM and put his arm around MA. He told MA he had a weapon and said to him ‘give me whatever you have’. MA felt the handle of a knife in the co-offenders pocket, pushed him away and ran to a nearby laundromat to call police.
Arrest
The phone number that received the PayID transfers from BS’s account was registered to the applicant, and call charge records show this number was active in North Melbourne at 1:20am and Footscray West at 1:46am. The applicant was subsequently arrested at an address in Point Cook, during which MS’s iPhone 8 was in the applicant’s pocket. Police also located the applicant’s phone that received the transfer from BS’s account, a small amount of cannabis and a grey Audi Q5, similar to that depicted in the Footscray CCTV and described by MA.
The applicant was taken to Melbourne West Police Station and made a no comment record of interview.
These offences are obviously serious. Ham-fisted and brazen as they were, they involved quite large amounts of money and the use of violence or a threat of violence in order to obtain financial benefit.
Outstanding matters
At the time of the offending the applicant was on bail for two matters and subject to a youth parole order. They are also matters of significant concern.
Informant Williams (bail)
Around 11:00pm on 17 August 2018 the applicant picked up EC (‘the complainant’) with co-accused Sacid Abdullah and they drove around looking for cannabis. The applicant threatened the complainant whilst playing with a knife, saying they would not take her home unless she performed oral sex on them both. They all stopped and smoked some cannabis at a park before the complainant, who was frightened, went for a walk with the applicant. The complainant again refused the applicant’s request and he pushed her to her knees and forced his penis into her mouth until he ejaculated. The applicant then continued to threaten to stab the complainant, take her phone and leave her at the park, refused to take her home and forced her to perform oral sex on Abdullah and masturbate a third co-accused. The complainant was eventually dropped near her house at 4:50am and later that evening reported the matter to police. She identified all three males in a photo board.
The applicant was charged on the same date with procuring a sexual act by threat, rape (2 counts), rape by compelling sexual penetration and sexual assault by compelling sexual touching (2 counts).
On 31 August 2021, the applicant was granted trial bail, on which he remains for the informant Williams matter, on the following conditions:
(a) Reside at [redacted];
(b) Not attend any point of international departure;
(c) Not leave Victoria;
(d) Not leave Australia;
(e) Not to contact witnesses; and
(f) Not to contact co-offender.
The matter is listed for a directions hearing on 17 December 2021 and a trial is anticipated in 2022.
Informant Hill (bail)
At 7:30pm on 11 December 2020, police observed the applicant at Coles supermarket in South Melbourne concealing items in his clothing before proceeding to the self-checkout area, paying for two items and exiting. He was stopped, stolen items were recovered from his pants and bag and he provided police with a false name. He was charged with theft and stating a false name, arrested and then made full admissions during a record of interview.
Bail was revoked in this matter on 4 February 2021 when the applicant was remanded. On 11 October 2021 the applicant was convicted of the informant Hill offending and fined $100.
Youth parole
On 18 December 2019, the applicant was convicted of attempted armed robbery, home invasion and armed robbery and sentenced to 18 months youth detention.
He was released on youth parole on 17 August 2020, which was to expire on 17 June 2021.
Four months before that expiration, on 17 February 2021, the applicant’s Youth Parole Order was cancelled due to reoffending in the informant Hill matter and the allegations made against the applicant in the informant Allen matter. The breach report prepared by Youth Justice notes that the applicant’s compliance with parole was ‘average’, citing failure to attend appointments, limited engagement and poor compliance with drug and alcohol counselling and behavioural change programs. Although the applicant found a job, he was terminated for repeatedly turning up late and lied to his parole officer about his work hours.
The applicant’s performance on parole and the other matters where he is the accused do him no credit at all and potentially make this application for bail problematic, particularly having regard to the issue of unacceptable risk. I caveat this comment by noting that the informant Williams matter has not finalised and the applicant is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
The applicable legislation
The applicant is charged with schedule 2 offences, namely armed robbery and committing an indictable offence whilst on bail and awaiting trial for an indictable offence, within the meaning of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) (‘the Act’).[10]
[10]Bail Act 1977 (Vic) (‘the Act’) sch 2, items 1(c), 22(a) and 30.
At the time of this offending, the applicant was on bail for other schedule 2 offences, namely, rape and rape by compelling sexual penetration,[11] and was subject to a youth parole order for schedule 2 offences, namely, armed robbery and home invasion.[12]
[11]Ibid, sch 2, items 9 and 10.
[12]Ibid, sch 1, item 4.
Bail must be refused unless the applicant can satisfy the Court that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail.[13] In determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, the Court must take into account the relevant ‘surrounding circumstances’, including those in s 3AAA(1) of the Act.[14]
[13]Ibid ss 4AA(2)(c)(iii), 4AA(2)(c)(vi), 4A(1A) and 4A(2).
[14]Ibid s 4A(3).
If satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail, bail must still be refused if the respondent satisfies the Court there is a risk of a kind set out in s 4E(1)(a) of the Act and that such risk is unacceptable.[15] In considering this, the Court must again take into account the surrounding circumstances and consider whether there are any conditions of bail that may be imposed to mitigate the risk so that it is not unacceptable.[16]
[15]Ibid ss 4D(1)(a) and 4E.
[16]Ibid s 4E(3).
Finally, when interpreting and applying the Act, the Court is required to take into account the guiding principles set out in s 1B(1) of the Act.[17]
[17]Above n 10, s 1B(2).
The applicant’s personal circumstances
The applicant is 21 years old. His parents are Somalian and he has five siblings. In 2011, his parents separated. The applicant left school at the end of year 10 and began work to support his mother due to her significant health issues and childcare responsibilities.
The applicant started using cannabis at 13 and in his later teens used ecstasy and cocaine, which subsumed most of his income.
Criminal history
The applicant has a criminal history of some consequences for a person so young, some of which I have already referred to. The applicant’s relevant criminal priors are summarised as follows.
On 18 December 2019, as I have already mentioned, the applicant was convicted of home invasion with intent to steal, using an offensive weapon, attempted armed robbery and armed robbery for which he was sentenced to 18 months youth detention. This offending comprised of two incidents where the applicant and co-offenders arranged to purchase mobile phones on Gumtree before attending the homes of the sellers whilst armed and attempted to steal the phones.
On 2 October 2018, the applicant was found guilty of theft and fined $500 without conviction.
Some considerable time ago, on 17 April 2014, the applicant was found guilty without conviction of retention of stolen goods and sentenced to a good behaviour bond.
Application for transfer to a youth justice centre
An application was previously made pursuant to s 333 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) to transfer the applicant from adult custody to a youth justice centre. This application was heard alongside the application for bail on 11 March 2021. A report prepared by Youth Justice dated 11 March 2021 opposed this course for a number of reasons including the applicant’s history of violence, poor compliance on parole and what was described as limited motivation to engage with rehabilitative programs, and his behaviour in custody described as ‘at times been manipulative’, ‘crossing boundaries’ and engaging in ‘stand over behaviour where he has intimidated vulnerable young people’. This application with refused along with the application for bail.
The applicant’s submissions
The applicant relied on a number of matters, in combination, in support of the application for bail.
Strength of the prosecution case
It was submitted on behalf of the applicant that the prosecution case is circumstantial and not strong for a number of reasons, including that:
(a) the prosecution rely on call charge records and the recovery of items at the applicant’s residence;
(b) the applicant is not identified by witnesses or in the CCTV;
(c) the CCTV shows three males in a silver SUV but witnesses describe only two;
(d) no witnesses give evidence that the offenders were on the phone during the incidents; and
(e) there is no evidence in the Hand Up Brief that the applicant was the one using his phone at the time the offences were committed, which the informant conceded at the committal hearing.
Criminal history
It was conceded that the applicant has a relevant criminal history, however it was submitted that it is limited.
Youth
The applicant is 21 years old and was 20 years old at the time of the offending. Whilst he has been sentenced to a period of youth detention, it was submitted that his youth nevertheless militates against an extended remand period.
Employment
Mr Liban Jama, from Jama Building Group, has offered the applicant full-time employment in a carpentry role, which the applicant submits is a protective factor. The applicant’s father Mr Mohamed Sheikh referred to this potential employment in the course of giving evidence at this application. Mr Jama has known the applicant and his family since the applicant was young and is aware of his criminal history as well as the current charges. Mr Jama expresses in a written document exhibited to a supplementary affidavit in support of bail that he would like to ‘give [the applicant] the opportunity to be an active member of society’.
Stable accommodation and family support
The applicant proposes to reside with his father at [redacted] if granted bail. The applicant’s father is supportive and is able to supervise the applicant. At the time of the offending the applicant was residing with his mother. It is to his father’s address to which the applicant has been bailed on the informant Williams matter.
Availability of bail support services
The applicant is able to receive support in the community through The Youth Junction and Youth Activating Youth should he be granted bail.
The applicant was assessed by The Youth Junction in custody on 16 September 2021 and was deemed suitable to participate in the Youth Umbrella Project, which is funded by the Department of Justice and Regulation and aims to provide tailored therapeutic interventions to address offending behaviour, reduce the risk of reoffending and improve resilience in disadvantaged youth. This program also addresses mental ill-health, housing instability, alcohol and drug use and legal issues to assist in engagement with employment, education and training. It is also proposed that the applicant will be referred to the Preventing Alcohol Risk-related Trauma in Youth (‘P.A.R.T.Y.’) program in November for offence focused case management and support with education, employment, drug and alcohol issues and mental health. Ms Jessica Salamah gave evidence at the hearing of this application and requested that compliance with the Youth Umbrella Project and engagement in the November P.A.R.T.Y. program be mandated through conditions of bail. In her evidence, Ms Salamah said that if the applicant were to be granted bail she would be involved in supporting him, including by way of weekly appointments and arranging drug and alcohol counselling with the Youth Support and Advocacy Service.
Included in the written material filed on the applicant’s behalf is a letter of Mr Hanad Hersi, the coordinator of Youth Activating Youth, who states he has known the applicant for six years and has worked with him previously through the Youth Activating Youth Change program. Mr Hersi regards the applicant as a ‘great leader in the community’ with potential to support other vulnerable youth. To some degree that is at odds with the applicant’s background, particularly the fact he has previously been sentenced to periods in custody. Mr Hersi has indicated ongoing support will be offered to the applicant in the form of one-on-one mentoring, case management, specialist referrals and employment support to assist the applicant in reintegrating into the community. Mr Hersi opines that the applicant has ‘changed significant during his time in custody’ and has confidence that he does not present a danger to either the community or himself.
Delay and time likely spent on remand
It was submitted on behalf of the applicant that this matter has not yet been listed for trial and will not receive a priority listing, meaning it is likely the applicant would spend in excess of two years remanded in custody from the date of this application. It was argued on the basis of existing authority, of which there is now a great deal, that such a delay is excessive and capable of supporting a finding that exceptional circumstances have been established that justify the grant of bail, as well as bearing on the question of risk.[18]
[18]Re Warda [2021] VSC 323; Re Tofaris [2021] VSC 249 [45]; Re Shea [2021] VSC 207 [58]; Re Jiang [2021] VSC 148 [60]; Re Boo [2020] VSC 882 [71]; Re Ning [2020] VSC 609 [58]; Re Ilpola [2020] VSC 578 [56]; Re Taylor [2020] VSC 146 [51]; Re McCann [2020] VSC 138 [39]; Re Broes [2020] VSC 128 [46].
COVID-19 and onerous conditions in custody
Although not mentioned in oral submissions, reference was made in the written material filed on the applicant’s behalf to the COVID-19 pandemic having an onerous effect on people in custody, for example due to the suspension of visits from family and anxiety due to potential exposure to the virus in prison. It is well established by the authorities that these are matters of consequence when considering whether to grant an applicant bail.[19]
[19]Re McCann [2020] VSC 138, [40]; Thomas v Kitching [2020] VSC 206, [5], [92].
Surety
At the hearing of this application, the applicant’s father gave evidence that he would be prepared to provide a surety of $3,000 as a condition of the applicant being granted of bail.
Unacceptable risk
It was submitted in the written material filed with the court that the nine months the applicant has spent remanded in custody have provided him with an opportunity to, as it were, ‘detox’ and otherwise deterred the him from engaging in future offending. It was argued that these matters, combined with appropriate bail conditions, reduce the risk of releasing the applicant on bail to an acceptable level. Proposed conditions of bail include to the applicant residing with his father, reporting to a police station three times per week, complying with a curfew, not leaving Victoria, complying with lawful directions of Youth Junction, not using drugs, submitting to drug testing and not contacting witness.
The respondent’s submissions
Ms McMaster on behalf of the respondent opposed the application for bail. The respondent conceded at the hearing of the application that the applicant’s youth and the likely delay in this matter finalising established exceptional circumstances that justify the grant of bail. Ms McMaster very fairly recognised that the delay in this matter was substantial, and that the applicant’s youth was a significant factor. The respondent opposed bail on the basis that the applicant poses an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of another person and committing a further offence whilst on bail.
Strength of the prosecution case
The respondent disputed that there are strong prospects of acquittal on all charges and submitted the prosecution case is not weak. With respect, I agree that the case against the applicant is not a weak one.
Criminal history
The respondent submitted that the applicant’s offending has typically been against vulnerable members of the public, involved weapons and often occurred in situations where the alleged victims are outnumbered. It was submitted that the applicant’s history of violent crime against the person, including home invasion and armed robbery, indicates an ongoing risk to the community. Of further relevance is the consistent use of weapons. The applicant’s history is concerning and raises at least some level of hesitation in relation to granting him bail.
In addition to his criminal history, the applicant is also said to have been involved in two other violent incidents involving weapons. In the first, he is alleged to have thrown a knife into a river whilst running from police and in the second he threatened to kill a woman with a brick whilst in the company of other youths. These are matters of significant concern.
It was submitted that the applicant has also demonstrated a risk of reoffending if released on bail through his history of offending whilst on bail and while he was subject to a Youth Parole order.
Victims views
As I understand it, the victims in this matter have reported ongoing anguish, no longer feeling comfortable residing in the area where the alleged offending occurred and wishing to leave the country. They fear for the safety of themselves and others if the applicant is released on bail. They do not support or in any way agree to a grant of bail to the applicant.
Conditions of bail
The respondent submitted that the applicant’s proposed conditions of bail would not sufficiently mitigate risk to an acceptable level however, should bail be granted, a further condition to not attend North Melbourne unless for emergency reasons ought to be included. The respondent does not take issue with the applicant’s proposed residential address.
Analysis and conclusion
The primary factors that that present as a basis for a finding of exceptional circumstances are the applicant’s youth and the likely delay in this matter finalising. This is not an application where, if bail were to be refused, the time the applicant would spend remanded in custody would exceed the sentence that would likely be imposed on him were he to be convicted of all the outstanding matters where he is the accused. However, as I said in Re Yousef, this is not a pre-requisite of delay amounting to an exceptional circumstance justifying the grant to bail.[20] I note that the applicant is already on bail for the informant Williams matter.
[20][2021] VSC 272, [52]; Re Warda [2021] VSC 323, [58].
Counsel for the respondent agreed that, having regard to the document titled ‘Revised Melbourne criminal trial listings’ published by the County Court on 20 July 2021, the trial for this matter is unlikely to take place before the end of 2023 and may well occur in 2024. This is yet another case where an applicant applies for bail in the context of a significant delay before their matter is likely to finalise. The COVID-19 pandemic has meant that the criminal justice system has been unable to dispose of matters within an acceptable timeframe for most of the pandemic’s duration. The delays which have developed, especially in the criminal division of the County Court of Victoria, are unprecedented.
The fact that the delay in this matter finalising may be in excess of two years from now means that, coupled with the time the applicant has already spent in custody, he may well spend more than three years on remand before the matters where he is the accused are disposed of. It is simply unconscionable for a person of the applicant’s age to be remanded in custody for that period of time. This raises circumstances which are exceptional within the meaning of the Act.
Based on the material before me, I am also not persuaded that the risk of releasing the applicant on bail cannot be ameliorated to an acceptable level with the imposition of strict conditions of bail. The risk of releasing the applicant on bail, having regard to the circumstances of this case, is not such that the Court can condone a three-year period of remand for a 21-year old before the matters with which they are charged are dealt with.
It is important for the applicant to understand that any grant of bail made today can easily be revoked. Should the applicant breach any of the conditions of bail I will shortly announce, he can expect to be immediately returned to custody.
I will grant the applicant bail and make the following orders:
1.The said Sidi Sidi (‘the applicant’) be admitted to bail upon his own undertaking with a surety in the amount of $3,000 by Mohamed Sheikh and with the following conditions:[21]
[21]Mr Mohamed Sheikh gave an undertaking to the Court at the hearing of the application that, as surety for the applicant, upon becoming aware of the applicant breaching any of his conditions of bail, he would report any such breach to the informant or, if necessary, the Court. Mr Sheikh also gave an undertaking to otherwise do everything he could to ensure the applicant’s compliance his conditions of bail.
(a)The applicant reside at [redacted] in the state of Victoria (‘place of residence’);
(b)The applicant not leave his place of residence between the hours of 9:00 pm and 6:00 am;
(c)The applicant present at the at the front door of his residence during curfew hours upon the reasonable request of the Detective Senior Constable Allen (‘the informant’) or her nominee, being an authorised member of Victoria Police;
(d)The applicant must notify the informant or her nominee at least 7 days in advance of any proposal to change to his place of residence;
(e)The applicant is to report to the Officer in Charge of Broadmeadows Police Station, or their nominee, every Monday, Wednesday and Friday between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm;
(f)The applicant not attend the suburb of North Melbourne other than for the purpose of receiving urgent medical attention;
(g)The applicant not contact, whether directly or indirectly, any witnesses for the prosecution, other than the informant;
(h)The applicant not use or possess any narcotic substance as defined by the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic) without lawful authorisation under that Act;
(i)The applicant provide a sample of his breath or oral fluid for testing upon the reasonable request of the informant or her nominee;
(j)The applicant is not to possess or use more than one mobile phone;
(k)The applicant is to provide the informant or her nominee with the phone number, IMEI number and any password or PIN of the mobile phone he possesses or uses within 24 hours of first having access to that phone and notify the informant or her nominee of any change of password or PIN of that mobile phone within 24 hours of that change;
(l)The applicant is to produce the mobile phone he possesses or uses for inspection upon the reasonable request of the informant or her nominee;
(m)The applicant is to provide any password or PIN for the mobile phone he possesses or uses upon the reasonable request of the informant or her nominee;
(n)The applicant not leave the State of Victoria;
(o)The applicant not attend any points of international departure;
(p)The applicant engage in treatment with ‘The Youth Junction’, including attendance at the P.A.R.T.Y. program in November at Sunshine, and comply with all lawful directions of any staff member of ‘The Youth Junction’, including Ms Jessica Salamah, while engaging in such treatment;
(q)The applicant engage in treatment with ‘Youth Activating Youth’ and comply with all lawful directions of any staff member of ‘Youth Activating Youth’ while engaging in such treatment;
(r)The applicant engage in any available employment with Jama Building Group and comply with all lawful directions of Mr Liban Jama while engaging in such employment;
(s)The applicant is to appear:
(i)at this Court, for the purpose of judicial monitoring, at 9:30 am on 23 December 2021 and thereafter as directed by this Court; and
(ii)at the County Court at Melbourne at 9:30 am on 4 February 2022 and any such other date thereafter as directed by that Court.
0
12
0