Re Stephens
[2024] VSC 695
•4 November 2024
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2024 0212
IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)
and
IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by BRYCE STEPHENS
BETWEEN:
| BRYCE STEPHENS | Applicant |
| and | |
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS | Respondent |
---
JUDGE: | Champion J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 1 October 2024; 22 October 2024; 4 November 2024 |
DATE OF RULING: | 4 November 2024 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Re Stephens |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2024] VSC 695 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Charges of intentionally causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence, intentionally causing serious injury, affray, common law assault – First Nations man – Intellectual disability – Cognitive impairment – Criminal History – Support from CISP and Disability Justice – Strength of prosecution case – Compelling reasons satisfied – Unacceptable risk not found – Bail granted with strict conditions.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant | V Vuu | Shanelle Veit Lawyers |
| For the Respondent | R Barrett | Office of Public Prosecutions |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
By application dated 13 September 2024, Bryce Stephens (‘the applicant’) applies for a grant of bail from this Court.
The applicant is a 28-year-old First Nations man, who seeks bail on one charge of intentionally causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence;[1] one charge of intentionally causing serious injury;[2] one charge of affray;[3] and one charge of common law assault,[4]
each alleged to have been committed on 8 January 2024.[1]Contrary to s 15A(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
[2]Contrary to s 16 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
[3]Contrary to s 195H(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
[4]Contrary to Common Law.
The applicant has one co-accused, DB, who has been committed to stand trial with respect to the matters with which he has been charged in relation to the alleged offending.
There having been a committal at which the applicant was committed for trial on the matters above, he has pleaded not guilty to the charges. An initial directions hearing with respect to this matter was listed at the County Court of Victoria on 1 November 2024. A date for the applicant’s trial is not yet set.
Procedural history
On 2 February 2024, the applicant was arrested, charged, and remanded with respect to the alleged offending. The matter was first listed for a filing hearing at the Ballarat Magistrates’ Court on 5 February 2024, during which no application for bail was made, and the applicant was remanded back into custody.
On 13 February 2024, an initial application for bail was made in the same Court and bail was refused. A further bail application was heard at the same Court on 7 August 2024. On 9 August 2024, the applicant was again denied bail on the grounds that, although compelling reason had been established, the learned Magistrate concluded there still existed an unacceptable risk.
On 7 October 2024, the matter was listed for a committal hearing at the Ballarat Magistrates’ Court. The applicant was committed to stand trial on the abovementioned charges. The committing Magistrate discharged the applicant on some matters which were before the Court relating to a number of offences which were also alleged to have occurred on 8 January 2024.
The alleged offending
The complainant in this matter is AG (‘the complainant’). At the time of the alleged offending, the applicant and complainant had known each other for approximately nine months. The pair were ‘friends’ on the social media platform, Facebook, however, were not close and had little to do with each other.
At approximately 1:30am on 8 January 2024, the complainant and his then partner, KT, left the complainant’s Ballarat home and commenced walking to the Blue Bell Hotel located at 1216 Howitt Street, Wendouree.
Sometime during the walk, the applicant made contact with the complainant via Facebook Messenger and confirmed that he and KT would be attending the Blue Bell Hotel.
As the complainant and KT reached Howitt Street, they neared the home of KT’s friend, and as the pair passed the house, KT suddenly, and without warning, entered the property, closed and locked the front gate and front door behind her, and drew the front curtains closed.
The applicant continued to walk along Howitt Street alone when a vehicle approached him flashing its headlights. The applicant approached the car which had then stopped, and the two occupants questioned the applicant regarding a stolen vehicle. The applicant denied any knowledge of such matters.
Moments later, the two occupants exited the vehicle and proceeded to assault the complainant. A third, fourth, and fifth person, joined the assault from nearby and at some stage the complainant was stabbed in the buttocks and thigh.
As a result of the stabbing, the complainant suffered a severed sciatic nerve in his right leg, and it is unlikely that he will regain feeling in his leg or completely recover from his injuries. The forensic medical report prepared by the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine noted that without the blood transfusions administered to the complainant shortly following the incident, it is likely that the complainant would have died.
Arrest and interview
On 2 February 2024, police executed a search warrant at the applicant’s address, locating and seizing the applicant’s mobile phone and clothing matching that worn by the applicant in CCTV footage obtained from the morning of the alleged offending.
During his record of interview, the applicant denied his involvement in the alleged offending, stating that he did not know of anyone by the name of the complainant, had never messaged the complainant, and was at home at the time of the alleged offending. A number of these statements may prove to be false.
The applicable law
Guiding principles
The application in this matter is governed by the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) (‘the Act’). It is intended that the Act be applied and interpreted having regard to the guiding principles set out in s 1B(1), which include maximising the safety of the community and persons affected by crime to the greatest extent possible; and taking account of the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty.[5]
[5]Bail Act 1977 (Vic) s 1B(2) (‘the Act’).
The compelling reason test
The applicant has been charged with a Schedule 2 offence (intentionally causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence).[6] As such, the Court must refuse bail unless, after taking into account the relevant surrounding circumstances in s 3AAA(1) of the Act, it is satisfied by the applicant that a compelling reason exists that justifies the grant of bail.[7] It is not disputed between the parties that the compelling reason test applies to this application.
[6]Ibid sch 2, item 4.
[7]Ibid s 4C(1)-(3).
The phrase ‘compelling reason’ is not defined in the Act. The Court of Appeal in Rodgers v The Queen summarised the relevant principles as follows:
(1) For an applicant for bail required to show a compelling reason, a synthesis or balancing of all relevant matters (including those identified in s3AAA) 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’.[8]
[8][2019] VSCA 214, [43] (Beach, Kaye and Ashley JJA) (citations omitted).
The unacceptable risk test
Even if satisfied that a compelling reason exists, the Court must still refuse bail if the prosecutor can satisfy it that, having regard to the surrounding circumstances, there is an unacceptable risk that the applicant, if released on bail:
(a) would endanger the safety and welfare of any person, commit an offence, interfere with a witness or otherwise obstruct the course of justice in any matter, or fail to surrender into custody in accordance with conditions of bail; and
(b) that conditions of bail cannot mitigate the risk so that it is not unacceptable.[9]
[9]The Act ss 4C(4)-4E.
Family violence risks
The Court is required to make inquiries of the prosecutor as to whether there are any family violence intervention orders, family violence safety notices, or other recognised domestic violence orders in force against the applicant.[10] Parties in this matter confirm that the applicant is the named respondent with respect to family violence and personal safety intervention orders, none of which are related to the events upon which the current charges are based.
[10]Ibid s 5AAAA(1).
The applicant’s personal circumstances
As above, the applicant is a 28-year-old man of the Ngiyampaa people of New South Wales. The homelands of family group extend north around the Lachlan (Kaliyarr) to the Darling (Paawan) rivers, east to the Bogan River, and west to the Darling. The applicant’s connection to the Ngiyampaa peoples stems from his father, who was part of the Stolen Generations.
The applicant grew up in regional Victoria and has resided with his mother in Ballarat for most of his life. He has five older half-siblings, those being four half-brothers (one now deceased) and one half-sister. The applicant maintains a positive relationship with each of his half-brothers, however, is closest with his half-sister.
The applicant experienced a challenging upbringing. His parents separated during infancy, and his father used drugs and alcohol to a problematic extent. The applicant’s father was often violent towards the applicant and his mother, such that an intervention order was in place identifying the applicant and his mother as the Affected Family Members for an extended period. As a child, the applicant witnessed the death of his half-brother, which is said to have had a lasting impact on him.
The Court was provided with two detailed reports authored by Dr Laura Anderson, clinical neuropsychologist, dated 12 February 2023 and 13 September 2024 respectively. Dr Anderson concludes that the applicant has an intellectual disability, cognitive impairment, and suffers from neurodevelopmental dysfunction she believes may be associated with an alleged lead exposure during his youth. Further, the applicant has been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Trichotillomania, has a provisional diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder, and experiences language deficits and symptoms consistent with Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Foetal Alcohol Spectrum disorder.
Criminal history
The applicant has an extensive criminal history. His first conviction was recorded in 2014, and he has continued to offend on a consistent basis. The majority of the applicant’s previous offending is dishonesty-based, however, the applicant has one recorded conviction for recklessly causing serious injury. The applicant has also been convicted of various bail offences, and for contraventions of multiple community correction orders.
The applicant’s arguments
Compelling reason
As he is entitled to do, the applicant relies on a combination of factors in support of the argument that he has satisfied the compelling reason test. These include the following:
The prosecution case, possible sentence and time on remand
The applicant made extensive submissions with respect to the of the prosecution case following the committal hearing on 7 October 2024,[11] which in turn impacts the potential imposition of a term of imprisonment, time spent on remand relative to a potential term of imprisonment, and the nature and seriousness of the alleged offending.[12] I note that this Court has been provided with a transcript of the committal proceeding, however, further materials, such as the hand-up-brief, have not been accessed.
[11]The Act s 3AAA(1)(b).
[12]Ibid s 3AAA(1)(aa)-(a).
It is submitted by the applicant that the prosecution case is significantly weakened by the evidence given at committal. The applicant identifies various challenges associated with the prosecution case, including the reliability of the complainant and the difficulties associated with proving guilt via statutory complicity. Whilst the applicant concedes that, if found guilty of the most serious of the alleged offences, he will be sentenced to a term of imprisonment in excess of any time spent on remand, he also notes that the offending in this matter is a standard example of a serious offence, which must be weighed against the significantly weakened prosecution case, as submitted by the applicant.[13]
[13]Ibid s 3AAA(1)(a).
The applicant’s First Nations identity and deprived upbringing
Being a First Nations man of the Ngiyampaa peoples in New South Wales, the applicant submits that the matters listed in s 3A(1) of the Act must be considered by this Court.[14] The Court’s mandatory consideration of these matters is not opposed by the respondent.
[14]Ibid s 3A(1).
With respect to the over-representation of Aboriginal peoples in the justice system, the applicant submits that the Court must be cautious not to compound high incarceration and remand rates of First Nations peoples unless there is a good cause to do so.[15] The applicant proposes that, given the availability of the Court Integrated Services Program (CISP), and support of Disability Justice and his family, there are multiple factors which support a pathway alternative to remand. The applicant further notes that the Court must consider the risk of harm and trauma being remanded in custody places on the applicant, especially given the high number of Aboriginal deaths in custody.[16]
[15]Ibid s 3A(1)(a).
[16]Ibid s 3A(1)(b).
The applicant identifies the importance of maintaining and supporting the development of connection to culture, kinship, family, Elders, country, and community as a matter of significance in this application given the applicant’s expressed interest in and desire to connect with his culture should bail be granted, as noted in the reports of neuropsychologist, Dr Laura Anderson.[17]
[17]Ibid s 3A(1)(c).
It is submitted that issues which have arisen in relation to the applicant’s history, culture, and circumstances, including the impact of any experience of trauma, and intergenerational trauma, including abuse, neglect, loss and family violence, are relevant in this application.[18] As detailed in Dr Anderson’s reports, as a child, the applicant witnessed his father commit acts of family violence against his mother, in addition to being a victim of family violence himself. The seriousness of his father’s conduct was such that an intervention order identifying the applicant and his mother as the Affected Family Members was in place for some time. A further traumatic event for the applicant was the drowning death of his half-brother, which the applicant witnessed as a child. I note that the applicant did not make submissions as to the impact of intergenerational trauma stemming from the applicant’s father’s experiences as a member of the Stolen Generations.
[18]Ibid s 3A(1)(d)(i).
The applicant further submits that the Court must consider the mental illnesses, intellectual disability, and cognitive impairment detailed in Dr Anderson’s reports.[19]
[19]Ibid s 3A(1)(d)(iv)-(v).
Surrounding circumstances – s 3AAA
Special vulnerabilities
In his submissions, the applicant makes reference to the surrounding circumstances as defined in s 3AAA of the Act, which must be considered by the Court.[20] Particularly, the applicant draws the Court’s attention to his special vulnerabilities, namely his Aboriginality and the abovementioned mental illnesses and intellectual disability.[21]
[20]Ibid s 3AAA(1).
[21]Ibid s 3AAA(1)(h)(i), (iii)-(iv).
Bail supports and rehabilitation
The applicant makes further reference to the treatment and bail support services available to him, namely, the availability of the CISP program, engagement with Disability Justice for alcohol and other drug treatment (AOD), an active NDIS plan, and potential access to the Ballarat and District Aboriginal Cooperative (BADAC).[22] The applicant’s mother also gave evidence during the hearing of the application that the applicant can reside at her address if released on bail, and that she will support him.
[22]Ibid s 3AAA(1)(i).
The applicant makes note of his desire to attend a residential rehabilitation facility if granted bail, referring to his proposed cultural support plan which describes features of the Ngwala Willumbong service. The Ngwala Willumbong service includes a network of residential rehabilitation centres. However, it is conceded by the applicant that there is no guarantee that he will be able to obtain a place at any rehabilitation facility, and that a timeframe for any potential admission has not yet been established.
Unacceptable risk
As to the matter of unacceptable risk, the applicant puts forward the following arguments which, together, are submitted should persuade the Court that the risk in this matter is acceptable.
Available bail conditions
The applicant concedes that there is some risk of endangering the safety and welfare of any other person should bail be granted, however, submits that the available bail conditions which the Court may impose, including a curfew, non-association with the co-accused, prohibiting contact with prosecution witnesses, reporting, compliance with CISP, and judicial monitoring, render this risk an acceptable one.[23] Reliance is particularly placed on an initial CISP report dated 6 August 2024, and an update report dated 31 October 2024 provided to the Court after the Court reserved its decision in the matter. Both reports recommend case management with Ballarat CISP. The most recent report sets out the support plan that has been arranged for the applicant.
[23]Ibid s 4E(1)(a)(i), (3)(b).
Consideration of the matters in s 3A of the Act, which relate to the applicant’s Aboriginality, are also raised by the applicant in the context of unacceptable risk.[24] The applicant contends that the s 3A matters must be at the forefront of the Court’s mind when assessing risk and form a significant part of the application of the unacceptable risk test. Reference is made by the applicant to the support available from BADAC, and the applicant’s expressed intention to connect with his culture.
[24]Ibid s 4E(3)(a).
The respondent’s arguments
Compelling reason
The applicant’s First Nations identity – s 3A
The respondent submits that a compelling reason to justify the grant of bail is not established by the applicant, however, accepts that the Court must take into account the factors listed in s 3A of the Act.
Surrounding circumstances – s 3AAA
With respect to whether any length of time the applicant spends on remand will exceed a potential term of imprisonment, the respondent submits that from his arrest on 2 February 2024 to the time of a potential trial, the applicant will likely spend an estimated 18 months on remand.[25] The respondent, with which the applicant concurs, approximates that a trial in this matter is likely to proceed in 12 months, assuming that listing of the matter will be prioritised given that the applicant is a First Nations man.
[25]Ibid s 3AAA(1)(k)-(l).
Given the seriousness of the offending, the applicant’s prior history, which is discussed below, and the maximum penalty available for the current charges, it is the respondent’s contention that 18 months on remand will not exceed any potential sentence of imprisonment should such a sentence be imposed.[26] Causing serious injury intentionally in circumstances of gross violence is a category 1 offence, mandating the imposition of a term of imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of four years.[27] In the event that the applicant is instead convicted of one of the alternative offences, the respondent submits that the applicant will still be sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment given the objective gravity of the offending and the serious nature of the injuries inflicted.[28]
[26]Ibid s 3AAA(1)(aa)(i)-(ii).
[27]Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) sch 1 item 2(c)(iaa), s 10(1).
[28]The Act s 3AAA(1)(l).
The respondent further submits that the prosecution case is strong, especially following the committal hearing during which evidence of pre-meditation and planning in this case was heightened.[29] The respondent notes that, at the committal, the complainant swore up to his statements, gave evidence consistent with his statements, particularly with respect to the physical assault and the stabbing, and noted that he knew two of the people who stabbed him.
[29]Ibid s 3AAA(1)(b).
With respect to the available supports identified by the applicant, the respondent draws the Court’s attention to the applicant’s previous engagement with NDIS and Disability Justice, both of which have failed to curb the applicant’s offending behaviour.[30] With respect to proposed placement in residential rehabilitation, the respondent submits that this is ‘speculative’, and that bailing the applicant to reside at his mother’s address is not appropriate given that the applicant has consistently offended whilst living at this property.
[30]Ibid s 3AAA(1)(i).
Unacceptable risk
Even if the Court is satisfied that a compelling reason exists, the respondent submits that the applicant poses an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety and welfare of any person, interfering with a witness, or otherwise obstructing the course of justice.[31]
[31]Ibid s 4E(1)(a)(i)-(iii).
The respondent highlights the applicant’s extensive criminal history and historic failure to comply with court orders, including numerous bail offences and breaches of each community correction order on which he has been placed.[32]
[32]Ibid ss 4E(3)(a), 3AAA(1)(c).
Drawing on the matters raised with respect to compelling reason, the respondent again highlights that the applicant has engaged with the proposed supports, namely NDIS and Disability Justice, before and each have failed to alter the applicant’s criminal behaviour. Further, it is pointed out that the applicant has not secured a place at a residential rehabilitation facility.
With respect to the risk of witness interference, the respondent refers to the report of the informant, which notes that the applicant communicated with a prosecution witness shortly after the events, prompting the informant’s concern that the applicant is likely to seek out the victim and/or witnesses to seek retribution if he is released on bail.[33]
[33]Ibid s 4E(1)(a)(iii).
Analysis and conclusions
Compelling reason
With respect to the compelling reason test, the applicant relies on a combination of circumstances in order to argue that the test has been satisfied. As explained, it is common ground between the parties that the compelling reason test applies to this application. I shall apply the law as set out above.
First, in respect of the strength of the prosecution case, it is notable that since the first hearing in this application was held, there has been a committal hearing in this matter, following which the applicant was committed for trial on a number of charges. It appears that the learned Magistrate discharged the applicant on charges relating to allegations of armed robbery and thefts of the same victim. The applicant was however, committed for trial on charges relating to intentionally causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence.
As a result of the conclusions of the Magistrate at committal, the applicant argues that the prosecution case has been substantially weakened. It is argued that the evidence of the complainant, AG, differed materially from the statement that he provided to police on 29 January 2024, and accordingly his reliability and credibility have been compromised. On the other hand, the prosecution argues that the applicant remains committed on the charges relating to the assaulting behaviour, and in its very nature this is inherently serious conduct.
It is not the role of this Court to make detailed findings about the strengths or weaknesses of either of the parties’ cases. This will be a matter for a jury. Nevertheless, it is possible to conclude from the prosecution perspective, the case is not necessarily straightforward. It appears that the complainant, AG, is recorded as having a history of intravenous drug use of methamphetamine, and that the Magistrate was required to grant him a certificate of indemnity surrounding his drug use. Furthermore, it is alleged that there are aspects of his evidence that were evasive, and unreliable. Ultimately, it is not possible to conclude that the prosecution case is a particularly strong one, and it appears there may be some significant triable issues. On the other hand, it might also be observed that the prosecution case is not inherently weak. The best that can be said is that all of these matters are within the province of a jury’s determination.
As a result, the applicant argues that the shifting evidence impacts the Court’s assessment of the surrounding circumstances, with particular reference to whether the applicant would be sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment if he is convicted of all if, any of the charged offences, raising the argument that if bail is refused, the time he spends on remand may exceed any term of imprisonment.[34] Again, it is not possible to say with any degree of certainty what the outcome of the prosecution case will be, and what offending the applicant may be found guilty of having committed, and as a result what the sentencing outcome might be. Against this prospect, it seems common ground between the parties that if this matter proceeds to a contested trial, it may not be resolved for a further 12 months, or more.
[34]Ibid s 3AAA(1)(aa)(i)-(ii).
The applicant relies heavily on his First Nations background, as has been described above, and in considerable detail in the course of submissions. In essence, the Court is obliged to give significant consideration to the matters raised in s 3A of the Act, and to take into account the issues outlined in that section, including the requirement to consider the historical and ongoing discriminatory systemic factors which have resulted in Aboriginal people being over-represented in the criminal justice system, including in the remand population.[35] It is submitted that, in the applicant’s case, there are a number of factors which militate towards satisfaction of the compelling reason test, including the availability of CISP support, the ongoing support of Disability Justice, the support of the applicant’s family, and the possibility of residential rehabilitation being available.[36]
[35]Ibid s 3A(1).
[36]Ibid ss 4C(3), 3AAA(1)(i).
The applicant also points to his intellectual disability and mental health diagnoses as outlined in the report of Dr Anderson, and other matters referred to therein. It is put forward that the applicant should be recognised as having special vulnerabilities, as described in s 3AAA of the Act.[37]
[37]Ibid s 3AAA(1)(h)(i), (iii)-(iv).
In short, it is submitted that when all of the matters put before the Court, as discussed above, are distilled and considered appropriately, the compelling reason test has been satisfied.
In all the circumstances and given all of the material put forward on behalf of the applicant, I am prepared to accept that the compelling reason test is satisfied. In coming to this conclusion, I have taken into account the very serious nature of the allegations made against the applicant, necessarily including the evidence that he is said to have been involved in stabbing the complainant on the street, following what appears to be a planned encounter by a group of men attacking the complainant.
Unacceptable risk
Having reached the conclusion that the compelling reason test is satisfied, that of course does not end the matter. The next question to ask is whether or not the respondent has satisfied the Court that the applicant represents an unacceptable risk, as defined by the Act.[38]
[38]Ibid s 4E(1).
This particular question has been given anxious consideration by the Court. The applicant has an extremely poor criminal record which appears to have begun in 2013, and continued up to through to 2023, and which began with violence perpetrated against police.[39] Thereafter, the applicant has, over the ensuing years, committed and been sentenced for numerous examples of criminal conduct, including assault with a weapon, affray, carrying a dangerous article in a public place, a charge of recklessly causing serious injury, criminal damage, burglary and theft, possessing a weapon, contravening a conduct condition of bail, committing an indictable offence on bail offences, aggravated burglary (person present), contraventions of community correction orders, to name but a few types of offences which he has been sentenced in respect of. Rather dismally, for a man of approximately 28 years of age, his criminal record extends over some 39 pages.
[39]Ibid ss 4E(3)(a), 3AAA(1)(c).
However, it appears that there are number of relevant agencies which are prepared to support the applicant should he be granted bail.[40] In a recent update, the applicant puts forward that Disability Justice have obtained the applicant’s consent for him to engage with them for the purposes of a referral to AOD treatment. It is put forward that such a referral cannot occur unless the applicant is in the community. There are other supports available as set out in the submissions of the applicant. It is nowhere near ideal that a residential rehabilitation facility cannot be finalised for the purposes of a bail hearing, and it is difficult to understand why this is. No real explanation about this was put forward on behalf of the applicant. Nevertheless, the submission is maintained that the applicant can reside at his mother’s address whilst referrals are conducted, and admission is sought at a rehabilitation facility.
[40]Ibid ss 4E(3)(a), 3AAA(1)(i).
It is proposed that to reduce the risk of reoffending until that might be achieved, the applicant could periodically return to this Court in order to ensure compliance with bail conditions.[41]
[41]Ibid s 4E(3)(b).
In all the circumstances as discussed, including that there is a suite of supports in the community available to the applicant, I have somewhat reluctantly formed the opinion that sufficient conditions can be placed around the applicant such as to ameliorate the unacceptability of risk to an acceptable level. It is trite that the consideration of amelioration of risk does not involve the elimination of risk, but rather reduction to a level that makes the risk acceptable. However, I will make the clear point that having reached this conclusion, this application could easily have gone either way and has been finely balanced. At this point, the respondent has not satisfied the Court that the risk is an unacceptable one, however, I will closely monitor the applicant’s performance on his grant of bail, with conditions.
I will first monitor the applicant in a fortnight from this date, when he will return to the Court and it will be explained to me what steps have taken place, and what progress has been made, with respect to the applicant’s management on bail. I make it clear, that the Court’s expectation is that a series of positive steps will actually have been taken to manage the applicant, and that the various agencies which have provided reports, and proposed supports, will have positively taken steps to assist the applicant. I will expect reports to be provided as to the steps which have taken place. It will be insufficient to indicate to the Court that it is hoped that steps will be taken, as the Court will require evidence that positive processes/actions are in place, are underway, and occurring. Should positive steps not have been taken, by the agencies, and the applicant, the applicant is at risk of the Court being satisfied that his risk of further offending has become an unacceptable one.
I will therefore admit the applicant to bail on his own undertaking, with the following special conditions:
(a) That he attend the County Court of Victoria sitting at Melbourne on 18 November 2024 and then surrender himself, and must not depart without the leave of the Court and, if leave is given, return at the time specified by the Court and again surrender himself into custody;
(b) That he is to reside at 21 Ealing Avenue, Wendouree, Victoria, and not change that address without the leave of the Court (‘the premises’);
(c) That he is to remain at the premises between the hours of 8:00pm and 8:00am each day for the duration of bail (‘the curfew hours’);
(d) That he present himself at the front door of the premises during the curfew hours if and when called upon by a member of Victoria Police to do so;
(e) That he notify the informant at least fourteen days in advance of any proposal to change his place of residence;
(f) That he report every Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday, or the nearest day thereafter if it falls on a public holiday, to the Officer in Charge of the Police Station at Ballarat, or their nominee, between the hours of 9:00am to 6:00pm;
(g) That he not contact, directly or indirectly, by any means whatsoever, the co-accused, being DB, for the duration of the bail period;
(h) That he not contact any witnesses for the prosecution, with the exception of the informant or their nominee;
(i) That he comply with all lawful directions of CISP or its nominee;
(j) That he comply with all lawful directions of the NDIS and of any treatment services;
(k) That he not leave the state of Victoria;
(l) That he not leave Australia;
(m) That he not attend any international point of departure;
(n) That he comply with the conditions of any intervention orders or personal safety intervention orders in which he is named as the respondent;
(o) That he reappear before this Court for judicial monitoring, to review compliance with the bail orders, at 9:30am on 19 November 2024, and any other further dates that the Court appoints during the course of this order.