Re Sofele
[2022] VSC 409
•18 June 2022
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2022 0127
| IN THE MATTER OF an application for Bail by TREVOR SOFELE |
| and |
| IN THE MATTER OF the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) |
---
JUDGE: | Champion J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 2 June 2022 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 18 June 2022 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Re Sofele |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VSC 409 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW — Application for bail — Applicant charged with multiple weapons, violence and theft offences — Strength of prosecution cases — Delay — Compelling reasons found — Unacceptable risk not established — Bail granted — Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 1B, s 3AAA, 4A, 4C, 4E, 5AAAA.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant | Mr R Revill | Richard Revill Solicitors |
| For the Respondent | Mr N Watt | Victoria Police |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
By application filed 18 May 2022, Trevor Sofele (‘the applicant’), seeks bail from this Court on the following three matters.
Senior Constable Trent McLure
· theft (four charges)
Senior Constable Neil Purkiss
· unlawful assault
Senior Constable Breanna Krause
·affray;
·theft;
·intentionally causing injury;
·recklessly causing injury;
·threatening to inflict serious injury;
·being armed with a firearm with criminal intent;
·being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm; and
·committing an indictable offence whilst on bail.
Procedural history
On 16 March 2020, the applicant was arrested, charged and released on police bail in the informant McLure matter.
On 1 April 2021, the applicant was charged on summons in the Purkiss matter. He failed to appear in answer to that summons on 3 May 2021 and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. On 4 July 2021, police arrested the applicant pursuant to the warrant and granted him bail.
On 23 March 2022, the applicant was arrested, charged and remanded in custody in the Krause matter. He was refused bail the same day at Werribee Magistrates’ Court on the grounds that there was an unacceptable risk that he would commit an offence whilst on bail or endanger the safety or welfare of any person.
On 7 April 2022, the applicant again applied for and was refused bail at the Werribee Magistrates’ Court in the Krause matter. The same day, bail was revoked in the McLure and Purkiss matters.
There is one co-accused in the Krause matter, James Pulefolau.[1] He has been refused bail twice, first on 7 April 2022 at Werribee Magistrates’ Court, and second on 19 May 2022 in this Court.[2]
[1]The co-accused is charged with affray, theft, intentionally causing injury, recklessly causing injury, armed with a firearm with criminal intent, possess a handgun without a licence (two charges), possess an unregistered handgun, possess a firearm without a licence and store said firearm in an insecure manner, possess cartridge ammunition without a licence, possess a machete, possess Schedule 4 poison, possess drug of dependence (three charges), retention of stolen goods, fail to provide police the passcode to his mobile phone, commit an indictable offence whilst on bail (three charges), and contravene conduct condition of bail (two charges).
[2]Re Pulefolau [2022] VSC 266 (Champion J).
All of the applicant’s matters are next listed for mention at Werribee Magistrates’ Court, the Krause matter on 31 May 2022 and the McLure and Purkiss matters on 16 June 2022.
The application
The application is supported by the affidavit of Richard Revill, solicitor, dated 17 May 2022, attaching a series of exhibits.
In response to the application, the respondent filed an application in response prepared by Grant Carr dated 27 May 2022, also attaching a series of exhibits including a report compiled by the informants Trent McLure, Neil Purkiss and Breanna Krause.
At the hearing of the application, evidence was called from the Informant Breanna Krause.
The applicant called evidence from Wasim Haddara, the applicant’s employer. Mr Haddara confirmed that if the applicant were to be released on bail he would be prepared to continue employing the applicant on a full time basis in his plastering business.
Evidence was also called from the applicant’s partner, Vitolina Hulo. Ms Hulo confirmed that she and the applicant share five children, including a newborn baby just five weeks old at the time when this application was heard. Ms Hulo’s evidence was that the birth of her youngest child had been traumatic, and she had since been undergoing treatment for post-natal depression and severe stress. She confirmed that since her husband was remanded she had been supporting her family on Centrelink payments alone, which amounted to just under $1000 per fortnight.
The alleged offending
Informant McLure matter
The applicant is charged with stealing petrol on 11 and 20 May 2019, and 26 January and 8 February 2020. On each occasion the applicant drove his black Toyota SUV to a petrol station, filled the vehicle and then drove off without paying. The value of the fuel stolen was $60, $20, $40 and $40 respectively. On these occasions, the applicant was captured on CCTV.
On 16 March 2020, the applicant went to the Werribee Police Station and was arrested. He was interviewed and said that in relation to two of the incidents he was distracted and in relation to the final incident that he did not have enough money and was ashamed. He also said that he had returned to pay for the fuel following some incidents. The applicant was charged and bailed. Further enquiries by police revealed the applicant had not returned and paid for the fuel and the amounts were still outstanding.
Informant Purkiss matter
On 14 March 2020, the applicant and his partner, Vitolina Hulo (‘the complainant’), had a verbal argument about how the accused was speaking to the children after she heard the applicant call one of the children a “fucking little shit”.
The applicant went into the bedroom where the complainant was on the bed, picked up a water bottle and sprayed her with it, and then hit her in the face with a jumper. The complainant was holding her mobile phone at the time, which hit her in the face causing redness and pain. The complainant called the police because she was concerned the applicant would hit her again.
Police attended and conveyed the applicant to Werribee Police Station. He said he hit the complainant with a jumper because she was yelling. The applicant was issued with a Family Violence Safety Notice (‘FVSN’), charged and released pending summons.
Informant Krause matter
At about 9:00am on 13 March 2022, the applicant and co-accused went to the gaming area at the Phoenix Hotel in Point Cook where the co-accused began punching the complainant, Atieli Pakalani, unprovoked. The applicant is alleged to have joined in the assault, punching the complainant to the head and body. The complainant fell to the ground, where the applicant and co-accused continued to punch and kick him. This was captured on CCTV and numerous patrons witnessed the assault.
During the assault, the complainant managed to get to his feet and run outside to the carpark. The applicant and co-accused then picked up a bag which the complainant had dropped, which contained the keys to the complainant’s car, a bank card and $270 cash, before pursuing the complainant into the carpark.
In the carpark, the complainant picked up a garden stake to defend himself. The applicant allegedly said to the co-accused, “Get the gun from the car”. The co-accused then went to the front passenger side of the applicant’s car, reached inside and retrieved what appeared to be a firearm. When he heard mention of a firearm, the complainant ran back inside. The applicant and co-accused drove away. This was captured on CCTV.
The complainant sustained bruising and swelling to his face and body and a chipped tooth from the assault.
On 23 March 2022, the co-accused, JP, was arrested at his residence in Hoppers Crossing. His house was searched and clothing matching what he was seen to wear on CCTV was found. The co-accused’s house was also searched and a shortened double barrel shotgun was found, as well as a large amount of ammunition, and various drugs.
The applicant was interviewed and said he joined in the fight because he thought the co-accused was being assaulted. He said that he did not steal anything, but that the co-accused did. He denied having knowledge of a firearm being present and denied making threats in relation to getting a firearm.
The applicant is a prohibited person in relation to the Firearms Act 1996 because he was subject to a final Family Violence Intervention Order (‘FVIO’) at the time of the alleged offending.[3]
[3]Firearms Act 1996, s 3.
The applicable legislation
Guiding principles
This application is governed by the Bail Act 1977 (‘the Act’), which is to be applied and interpreted having regard to the guiding principles in s 1B(1).[4] This includes — amongst other things — maximising the safety of the community and persons affected by crime to the greatest extent possible, and taking into account the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty.
[4]Bail Act 1977 (Vic) (‘the Act’), s 1B(2).
The compelling reason test
Because the applicant is charged with a Schedule 2 offence within the meaning of the Act – namely, using or threatening to use a firearm in the course of committing an indictable offence,[5] and committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, a grant of bail must be refused unless he can satisfy the Court that a compelling reason exists that justifies the grant of bail.[6] In determining this question, the Court must have regard to the relevant surrounding circumstances, including those in s 3AAA(1) of the Act.[7]
[5]The Act sch 2, item 23.
[6]Ibid ss 4A(3) and 4C(1)-(2).
[7]Ibid s 4C(3).
Meaning of compelling reason
The phrase ‘compelling reason’ is not defined in the Act. In Rodgers v The Queen, Beach, Kaye and Ashley JJA summarised the relevant principles, as follows:[8]
(1)For an applicant for bail required to show a compelling reason, a synthesis or balancing of all relevant matters (including those identified in s 3AAA) must compel the conclusion that the applicant’s detention in custody is not justified.
(2)It is not, however, necessary for an applicant required to show a compelling reason, to show a reason which is irresistible or exceptional.
(3)A compelling reason is one which is forceful and therefore convincing — a reason which is difficult to resist.[9]
[8][2019] VSCA 214 (Beach, Kaye and Ashley JJA).
[9]Ibid [43] (footnotes omitted).
The unacceptable risk test
Even if satisfied that a compelling reason justifying a grant of bail exists, the Court must still refuse bail if satisfied by the respondent that the applicant poses a risk of any of the matters outlined in s 4E(1)(a), and that such a risk is unacceptable. The Court must again have regard to the relevant surrounding circumstances in doing so, and consider whether there are any conditions of bail to moderate risk so that it is not unacceptable.
Family violence risks
Section 5AAAA(1) of the Act requires the Court to inquire with the prosecutor as to whether there are any FVIOs, FVSNs, or recognised domestic violence orders in force against the applicant. Further, because the applicant is charged with family violence offences, s 5AAAA(2) of the Act requires the Court to consider whether – if he were released on bail – there would be a risk that the applicant would commit family violence, and if so, whether that risk could be mitigated by the imposition of a bail condition or the making of a FVIO.
As mentioned above, a FVSN was made after the alleged offending in the Purkiss matter. On 3 May 2021, a final FVIO was made by the Werribee Magistrates’ Court where the applicant is the respondent and the protected persons were the applicant’s partner and their four children. The conditions of the order were that the applicant was not to:
(a) commit family violence against the protected persons;
(b) intentionally damage property of the protected persons or threaten to do so;
(c) get another person to do anything he must not do under the order.
The FVIO expired on 2 May 2022.
The applicant’s personal circumstances
Background
The applicant is 36 years old. Prior to his remand, he lived with his partner, Vitolina Hulo, and their four children aged 14, 12, 10 and eight years of age. On 7 April 2022, Ms Hulo gave birth to their fifth child. The applicant and Ms Hulo have been together for 22 years and moved to Australia from New Zealand about ten years ago. They have no other family living in Australia.
The applicant was employed for eight months prior to his remand by Better Homes & Plastering, involved in the construction of residential housing.
Criminal history
The applicant has no criminal history.
The applicant’s contentions
The applicant relies on the following matters, in combination, to show a compelling reason that justifies the grant of bail.
Strength of the prosecution case
The applicant submits that there are issues with the prosecution case. Firstly, the applicant denies possession of a firearm as alleged in the Krause matters. He submits that the CCTV footage that purports to depict the firearm is equivocal in nature, and further that there is currently no forensic evidence linking him to the firearm found at the co-accused’s residence.
Secondly, the applicant submits that there is insufficient evidence to establish that the complainant in the Krause matter sustained an injury. He submits that no medical evidence or photographs have been provided and the complainant did not seek or require medical attention as a result of the alleged assault.
Overall, the applicant submits that there is insufficient evidence to prove the Krause matter charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Delay and likely sentence
The applicant submits that there is likely to be a delay given that the Krause matter will be contested. The applicant was remanded on 23 March 2022 and will have accrued 69 days of pre-sentence detention by the time of his next mention on 31 May 2022. He submits that there will be a delay to a contest mention listing of possibly months, and then even further delay to a contested hearing.
The applicant submits that this delay is likely to exceed any sentence that is imposed when the matters are finally resolved. The applicant submits that a community corrections order is within range given the applicant’s lack of criminal history and the emphasis on the sentencing purpose of rehabilitation.
The applicant relies on Re Johnstone (No 2) which states that a compelling reason may be shown by the applicant having being remanded in custody longer than any sentence of imprisonment that would likely be imposed.[10] In that matter, the applicant had already spent four months in custody and it was very unlikely that any sentence of imprisonment for the offending would exceed that.[11]
[10][2018] VSC 803 (Beach JA), [18].
[11]Ibid [20].
Family support and stable accommodation
The applicant has stable accommodation at [redacted]. He has rented and lived at that address for three years with his partner and their children.
The applicant’s partner continues to support him. She has suffered significant hardship due to his incarceration, both financially and emotionally. Ms Hulo gave birth to their fifth child while the applicant was incarcerated and has been caring for all five children by herself. She has no family in Australia. The applicant has provided a letter from Dr Shirin Motaman, dated 16 May 2022, which states that Ms Hulo is suffering from ‘post-natal depression/severe stress’.
Employment
The applicant submits that he will have employment available to him if released on bail. Prior to his remand, the applicant was employed full-time at Better Homes & Plastering, which is owned by Wissam Haddara. Mr Haddara gave evidence at the hearing before this Court and confirmed that the applicant can be re-employed by his company in the event he receives a grant of bail.
COVID-19 and onerous conditions in custody
The applicant submits that his time in custody has been served in extremely onerous conditions. He spent 14 days in quarantine and has not had any personal visits.
Unacceptable risk
It is submitted that any unacceptable risk alleged by the respondent can be moderated to an acceptable level by the imposition of conditions of bail, including as to residence, reporting, a curfew, non-association with the co-accused, non-contact with witnesses, not to leave Victoria and not to attend any points of international departure.
The respondent’s contentions
The application for bail is opposed on the basis that the applicant has not discharged the burden of satisfying the Court as to the existence of a compelling reason that justifies the grant of bail. Bail is also opposed on the basis that the applicant is an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of any person, committing an offence whilst on bail, and failing to surrender into custody.
In response to the applicant’s contentions, and in addressing the surrounding circumstances and unacceptable risk, the respondent relies on the following.
Strength of the prosecution case
The respondent submits that a firearm can been seen in the hands of the applicant at the 18 to 22 second mark on the CCTV footage, and again at the 4 minute 2 second mark.
The respondent also submits that the written statement from the complainant demonstrates that the applicant had knowledge of the firearm being in close proximity. In addition, police have the firearm recovered from the co-accused’s house which they submit matches the one observed in the CCTV footage. The firearm has been sent for both forensic and ballistic evaluation but this has not been completed yet.
Further, the applicant contends that there is insufficient evidence of injury to the victim. The respondent notes that six photographs were taken immediately after the assault, which are submitted to demonstrate the complainant suffered from bleeding, bruising, and swelling on the head and neck, and a chipped tooth.
Criminal history
It is conceded that the applicant has no criminal history.
Family violence intervention order in force
The Purkiss matter is an allegation of family violence. The applicant was the respondent in an active FVIO at the time of the alleged offending in the Krause matter. The order expired on 2 May 2022.
Complainant’s views on bail
The complainant in the Krause matter is fearful of the applicant on the basis that the assault was entirely unprovoked. He holds concerns that, if the applicant were granted bail, he would not hesitate to assault him again.
Unacceptable risk
Endangering the safety and welfare of any person
The applicant is charged with a violent assault that occurred in a public setting and while he was on bail for other offences. The respondent has serious concerns regarding the applicant’s escalation of offending to the possession of a firearm, and submits that the applicant has demonstrated a willingness to possess, carry and display a firearm.
Committing an offence whilst on bail
The applicant has been charged with committing an indictable offence whilst on bail.
Failing to surrender into custody in accordance with the conditions of bail
There have been two bench warrants issued for the applicant’s failure to appear at court previously. The respondent submits that the applicant is inconsistent with his attendance at court appearances, still facing matters from 2019.
Analysis and conclusions
In support of his argument the applicant put forward the following factors in combination as establishing a compelling reason why he should receive a grant of bail.
Strength of prosecution case
The applicant submitted there is insufficient evidence to prove the Krause charges beyond reasonable doubt and that there are triable issues with respect to the applicant’s alleged handling of a firearm, and his asserted belief he was acting in the defence of his co-accused during the alleged assault. In that respect the applicant said in his interview that he joined in the fight because he thought his co-accused was being assaulted. Further, it is submitted that doubt exists that the victim received injuries as a result of the alleged assault. On the other hand, the respondent alleges the applicant was an active part of the assault by punching the complainant to the head and the body, and then punching and kicking him after he fell to the floor. Further, the respondent submits a firearm can be seen in front area of the car being handled by the applicant.
The Court has had an opportunity to view the CCTV footage of the events in the hotel, and in the carpark. In my opinion, it is open to conclude that the CCTV shows the applicant participating in a very violent joint assault on the victim. The vision is capable of demonstrating that patrons were present and witnessed the events, that it was an assault that took place in a public place, in company with the co-accused, and was violent, albeit relatively short in duration.
As to the applicant’s alleged possession of the firearm, from viewing the footage of the events that occurred in the front seat of the motor vehicle parked outside the hotel, it will be reasonably open to a fact finder to be satisfied that the applicant is depicted handling a firearm.[12] It is of particular relevance the victim reported in his statement that the applicant told the co-accused to get the gun and shoot him. The clear inference arises the applicant referred to a gun because he knew there was one in the motor car for the co-offender to obtain. There is little reason to think that the victim would have just guessed there might be a firearm nearby. Furthermore, there was a firearm later located alleged to be in possession of the co-offender.
[12] In the judgment relating to the co-accused’s bail application, I noted that ‘it would be open for a fact-finder to conclude that there was a firearm in the front seat of the car, and that [the applicant] can be seen handling it’.
The above noted, it is not the role of this Court to try the issues between the prosecution and defence, as that will fall to the eventual fact finder hearing these matters. However, in my opinion, having had regard to all of the evidence I am satisfied that the case for the prosecution cannot be described as being weak, or foredoomed to fail, but is reasonably strong. It may be there are some triable issues, but these will eventually be resolved by the court hearing the matters.
Delay
As to the question of delay, it is submitted that if the applicant does not receive a grant of bail, there is an appreciable risk that he would serve the period of his remand custody where it could exceed the sentence that may be eventually imposed upon him. It is submitted that in all the circumstances the applicant may receive a community corrections order in respect of some, if not all, of his matters. It is to be observed that in respect of the McClure and Purkiss matters, it would be unlikely the applicant would receive a sentence of imprisonment should he be found guilty of these allegations. Whether imprisonment would be imposed in respect of the Krause matters is less clear. The assault on the victim at the hotel was of a serious nature, made more so by the possibility that the applicant and his co-accused had gone to the hotel to find the victim, and that they had with them a firearm. Further, it is alleged that the applicant urged his co-accused to get the gun and shoot the victim. In my opinion, a sentence of imprisonment would be open to be passed despite the fact the applicant has no prior convictions, but of course that outcome will depend on what charges the applicant will be found guilty of at the conclusion of all proceedings. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that a mixed sentence involving a period of imprisonment, but also a community corrections order, may be open to be imposed on the applicant should he be found to have committed the offences as alleged by the prosecution.
Time in custody
I accept that the applicant’s time in custody has been burdensome due to COVID-19 restrictions, and in the event he does not receive a grant of bail it is likely that similar burdens would be experienced by him. I have taken this into account. It is his first time in custody.
Parity of bail
The allegations made against the applicant in the Krause matters involve the applicant and his co-accused acting jointly in their assault on the victim, and, jointly in relation to the possession of the firearm in the car park. Although not specifically raised by the applicant in argument, the question of parity of bail must be noted. The applicant’s co-accused made an application for bail in this Court which was refused on the basis that he had not satisfied the exceptional circumstances test that applied to his case, and that in any event I was satisfied that he would have amounted to an unacceptable risk as defined by the Bail Act. The applicant did not seek to draw any comparison to the bail and personal circumstances of his co-accused, and indeed, was not aware of the outcome of that application.
For the sake of completeness, as above, the exceptional circumstances test applied to the applicant’s co-accused, JP, whereas in the applicant’s case the compelling reason test applies. Further, I note that JP had a prior conviction, and had other outstanding matters which were also more serious than those applying to the applicant. Furthermore, in respect of the offence involving the possession of a firearm, this weapon was later found in the possession of JP, along with a significant amount of ammunition. That is not the case in respect of the applicant.
Having considered the position of the co-accused, I am of the opinion that the case relating to JP has different and more serious characteristics, including differing personal circumstances pertaining to both men. In the circumstances I do not regard a parity of bail argument assists either the respondent or the applicant in relation to the present application.
Family support and stable accommodation
The applicant submits that he has stable rental accommodation where he has lived with his partner and their children for three years. The applicant’s partner, Ms Hulo, continues to support him despite the allegation that at one stage he assaulted her. She gave evidence in this Court at the hearing during which she described the difficulties she both experienced, and is experiencing, with respect to her ongoing health. These circumstances relate in particular to the period following the birth of her child, and her ongoing state of physical and mental health. I found her evidence to be credible, and that she requires assistance at the level she says the applicant can provide her with. Her evidence was supported by the letter authored by Dr Shirin Motaman stating that Ms Hulo is suffering from ‘post-natal depression/severe stress’. The applicant’s wife has a very young child to care for, and she has given evidence she needs assistance.
Taking all matters into account, I am of the opinion that the medical circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s wife is a powerful factor in support of this application.
Employment
The applicant submits that he has ongoing employment available should he receive a grant of bail, and evidence was placed before the Court in respect of that matter. The respondent appeared not to contest the evidence given.
In summary, in light of both the circumstances attaching to the applicant, and the evidence put forward in this application as discussed above, in applying the test as set out previously in these reasons, I am satisfied that the applicant has shown that by a combination of circumstances, a compelling reason exists that justifies the grant of bail. In all the circumstances, and for the reasons I have discussed, I am satisfied the applicant has met the compelling reason test in that the reasons advanced are forceful and therefore convincing — a reason which is difficult to resist. In forming this view I have taken into account the surrounding circumstances, as I am required to do by the Act.
Unacceptable risk
Having found the applicant has satisfied the compelling reason test, it is not the end of the matter. The Act requires me to consider whether in all the circumstances the applicant represents an unacceptable risk as defined within the Act. As is frequently the case, much of the evidence that satisfies the compelling reason test is also relevant to a determination of the unacceptable risk issue. I am also well aware of the need to consider the surrounding circumstances provisions, and the family violence provisions that bear on deciding this application.
The respondent submitted that three matters act to render him an unacceptable risk, namely, that as he is charged with a violent assault that occurred in a public setting, that his violent behaviour has escalated; that he was prepared to display the presence of a firearm and use it as a threat; and that he was on bail for other offences at the time, such that he is a risk of committing further offences should he be admitted to bail.
Further, it is submitted that the applicant has been charged with having committed an indictable offence while on bail, and that he has failed to appear at earlier proceedings.
As such it is submitted these risks all apply to the applicant, and that he should not receive a grant of bail.
The applicant responds by pointing out that any risk can be ameliorated by the addition of suitable conditions to an undertaking of bail.
It is correct the applicant was on bail at the time of his alleged commission of the Krause offences, but it is to be acknowledged that the bail he was granted was in relation to the earlier matters, for which I have concluded he is unlikely to receive a sentence of imprisonment in any event. In respect of those matters he was admitted to bail due to his failure to appear at relevant court hearings. Normally an earlier failure to appear on bail, and the commission of indictable offences whilst on bail, would tend to instil a lack of confidence that the applicant will adhere to bail conditions as such circumstances go to the evaluation of unacceptable risk. However, in the applicant’s case it appears that these breaches were towards the lower end of gravity, such that they have lesser influence on a finding that the applicant represents an unacceptable risk.
In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that the respondent has satisfied me that if granted bail the applicant represents an ongoing unacceptable risk of the kind set out in the Act. In my view, conditions can be attached to a grant of bail so as to ameliorate any risk to a level that is acceptable. In coming to this conclusion I have taken into account the surrounding circumstances, most of which have also been relevant, and discussed above, in relation the exceptional circumstances test.
Having come to these conclusions, in my opinion the applicant should be granted bail in his own undertaking, to which shall be attached the following special conditions:
a.He reside at [redacted] (‘place of residence’).
b.He remain at his place of residence between the hours of 10:00pm and 6:00am each day for the duration of bail unless in the course of employment.
c.He present himself at the front door of his place of residence, during those curfew hours if and when called upon by a member of Victoria Police to do so.
d.He not use alcohol or use a drug of dependence within the meaning of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 without lawful authorisation under that Act.
e.He not contact, directly or indirectly the co-accused, Mr James Pulefolau.
f.He not contact, directly or indirectly, any witness for the prosecution, except the informant.
g.He report each Monday, Wednesday and Friday to the Officer in Charge (or his or her nominee) at Werribee Police Station, 134-140 Princes Highway Werribee between the hours of 8:00am and 6:00pm.
h.He not leave the State of Victoria.
i.He not attend any points of international departure.
j.He reappear before the Court for judicial monitoring to review his compliance with this order at 9:00am on 1 July 2022 and any further dates this Court appoints during the course of this order.
0
2
0