Re Swanson
[2022] VSC 619
•19 October 2022
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2022 0240
| IN THE MATTER of an application for bail | |
| Between: | |
| KIRSTY SWANSON | Applicant |
| -and- | |
| FIRST CONSTABLE JAYDEN SAMMUT | Respondent |
---
JUDGE: | Croucher J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 7 October 2022 |
DATE OF ORDERS: | 7 October 2022 |
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF REASONS: | 19 October 2022 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Re Swanson |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VSC 619 |
| (First revision: 20 October 2022) (Second revision: 24 October 2022) |
---
CRIMINAL LAW — Application for bail — Where applicant, aged 26, charged with inter alia trafficking (simpliciter) in 1,4 butanediol, possession of controlled weapon and breaching bail conditions — Where alleged offences committed while on bail for charge of failing to appear on other charges — Whether exceptional circumstances justifying bail — Whether, if bailed, unacceptable risk of failing to answer bail, endangering others or offending — Where history of failing to report on bail — Where history of illicit drug use — Where support of CISP available to applicant — Where applicant in custody for 36 days — Where applicant has modest criminal history — Where prosecution case on trafficking weak — Where, if bailed refused, period spent in custody before hearing likely to exceed any custodial sentence imposed if charges proved — Exceptional circumstances established — Unacceptable risk not established — Bail granted on own undertaking, with conditions — Bail Act 1977 (Vic), ss 4, 4AA, 4A, 4D & 4E.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant | Ms M Brown | Turnbull Lawyers |
| For the Respondent | Mr N Watts | Victoria Police, Legal Practice Group |
HIS HONOUR:
Overview
Kirsty Swanson applies for bail. The most serious charge she faces is trafficking (simpliciter) in the drug of dependence 1,4 butanediol. The trafficking alleged is based on possession for sale (as opposed to actual sales or the like). The other charges include suspicious possession of cash, possession of a folding knife and failing to report to police in accordance with a bail undertaking on another charge.
The principal issues on this application are: first, whether Ms Swanson has established exceptional circumstances justifying bail; and, second, whether the prosecution has established that there is an unacceptable risk that, if granted bail, she would fail to appear, endanger others or commit an offence while on bail.
It is conceded by the prosecution that there are exceptional circumstances. I am satisfied that that concession is appropriate. Further, while I took the prosecution to submit that I should find otherwise, I am not satisfied that any risk of failing to appear, endangering others or offending while on bail is unacceptable. Accordingly, bail must be granted, on conditions.
My reasons for these conclusions follow.[1]
Background
[1]On 7 October 2022, I heard and granted Ms Swanson’s application, and made orders accordingly. On that day, I gave brief reasons for my decision but indicated that I would give more detailed written reasons at a later date. These are those reasons, which, relevantly, I have left in the present tense.
Summary of alleged offending and arrest
The allegations and evidence supporting the charges are set out in a police summary, a precis of which follows.
At about 1:10 p.m. on Friday 2 September 2022, while patrolling Ballarat Central, First Constables Jayden Sammut[2] and Reece Wood saw Ms Swanson (aged 26) and Michael Voight in Drummond Street. As the officers approached, Mr Voight grabbed an insulated lunchbox out of Ms Swanson’s handbag. First Constable Sammut saw a bottle of milky crystal substance through an open zipper. He arrested Ms Swanson.
[2]First Constable Sammut is the informant and also the respondent on this application.
Meanwhile, Mr Voight ran behind some nearby units, where he was arrested by First Constable Wood. Under Mr Voight, police found various “deal bags” containing a white crystal substance believed to be methylamphetamine. On the ground beside Mr Voight, police found his wallet, which contained $1,882.50 in cash and an open suboxone packet. Mr Voight also had two mobile telephones in his possession.
Police searched the lunchbox. Inside it were a clear bottle containing a milky substance, five sealed suboxone packets, a smoking pipe, scales and deal bags. Upon testing, the substance in the bottle returned a positive result for 1,4 butanediol (“butanediol”), which is a drug of dependence similar to GHB. The weight of the bottle, including its contents, was 136 grams. The respective weights of the bottle and its contents have not been ascertained yet, although the contents are likely to exceed 50 grams, which is the traffickable quantity of butanediol (mixed).[3]
[3]See Column 3 of Part 3 of Schedule 11 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic).
When searched, police found a folding knife on Ms Swanson’s person. In her handbag were multiple deal bags, scales and a smoking pipe.
On 1 June 2022, following execution of a bench warrant, Ms Swanson was bailed on a charge of failing to answer bail.[4] A condition of her bail was to report to police at Ballarat each Monday, which she had failed to do several times.
[4]Contrary to s 30(1) of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic). As we shall see, Ms Swanson failed to report to police in accordance with her bail conditions on nine occasions over a two-month period. On 25 July 2019, Ms Swanson had been charged on summons with offences alleged to have occurred on 27 April 2019, comprising theft of a motor vehicle (based on her being a backseat passenger in a parked stolen car), possession of a controlled weapon (a knife), using a drug of dependence and dealing with proceeds of crime. The bench warrant had been issued for her arrest on 20 January 2022 because of her failure to appear at Sunshine Magistrates’ Court that day. That failure to appear also resulted in a charge, laid soon after that date by another police officer, of failing to appear in accordance with her conditions of bail entered into at Sunshine on 10 September 2021.
Interview
When interviewed at Ballarat Police Station, Ms Swanson said that the lunchbox was in her handbag because Mr Voight had handed it to her. She denied any knowledge of its contents but was aware that Mr Voight was a drug user. She said that she was a daily drug user and had previously used methylamphetamines, cannabis, and GHB.
Ms Swanson said she thought that she had reported on bail recently but could not remember when she was bailed or where she was bailed to. She remembered her bail conditions included reporting to police, but she had forgotten to do so.
Charges against Ms Swanson
In the alternative to the trafficking charge,[5] Ms Swanson was charged with possession of butanediol.[6] Additionally, she was charged with possession of another drug of dependence (suboxone);[7] dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime (the $1,882.50 in cash);[8] possession of a controlled weapon (the folding knife);[9] three instances of committing indictable offences while on bail (viz, the trafficking and the two possession offences);[10] and contravening a conduct condition of bail (by failing to report to police).[11]
[5]Contrary to s 71AC of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic).
[6]Contrary to s 73(1) of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic).
[7]Contrary to s 73(1) of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic). Suboxone is a prescription drug used to treat dependence on opioid drugs. It was not explained why two persons with histories of drug addiction are alleged to have committed this offence. Perhaps they did not have a prescription and therefore were not, in accordance with s 73(1), “authorized by or licensed under [the Act]” to possess the drug.
[8]Contrary to s 195 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
[9]Contrary to s 6(1) of the Control of Weapons Act 1990 (Vic).
[10]Contrary to s 30B of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).
[11]Contrary to s 30A(1) of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).
Ms Swanson’s application for bail refused by magistrate
On Tuesday 6 September, Ms Swanson applied to the Ballarat Magistrates’ Court for bail. That application was refused on the basis that the magistrate was not satisfied that there were exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of bail.
Mr Voight
On the day of his arrest with Ms Swanson, Mr Voight was charged with trafficking in and possession of methylamphetamine, possession of butanediol, possession of suboxone, and negligently dealing with proceeds of crime. Significantly, it might be thought, unlike Ms Swanson, he was not charged with trafficking in butanediol.
On Monday 5 September, Mr Voight was granted bail at Ballarat Magistrates’ Court.[12]
[12]Mr Voight and Ms Swanson’s bail applications were heard by different magistrates.
On Saturday 10 September, Mr Voight was arrested again and charged with new offences. He was remanded in custody and his bail of 5 September was revoked. He remains in custody.
Mr Voight’s matters have since resolved to pleas of guilty to possession of methylamphetamine (the trafficking charge was withdrawn), possession of butanediol (again, not trafficking), dealing with proceeds of crime (cash in the amount of $582.50, not $1,882.50), and resisting an emergency worker. The summary of facts relied on was the same as described above (save for the amount of cash). The matter returns to the Ballarat Magistrates’ Court for sentence in November[13] pending an assessment of Mr Voight’s suitability for a community correction order (“CCO”).
[13]While, in the prosecution affidavit filed on this application, the sentencing date was said to be 13 October, Mr Watt, who appeared for the informant, said it was in November.
Applicable tests for bail
On this application, because Ms Swanson is charged with a Schedule 2 offence (trafficking) while on bail for a charge alleging a Schedule 2 offence (failing to appear in accordance with an undertaking of bail), bail must be refused unless she satisfies the Court that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail.[14]
[14]See ss 4AA(2)(c)(i) and 4A of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).
Further, if the exceptional circumstances test is met, bail must still be refused if the prosecution satisfies the Court that there is an unacceptable risk that, if released on bail, Ms Swanson would endanger the safety or welfare of any person, commit an offence while on bail, or fail to surrender into custody in accordance with conditions of bail.[15] If the Court is not so satisfied, bail must be granted.[16]
[15]See ss 4D and 4E of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic). There is no suggestion there is a risk that, if bailed, Ms Swanson would interfere with a witness or otherwise obstruct the course of justice (see s 4E(1)(a)(iii)).
[16]See s 4 of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).
In considering each of these statutory tests, the Court must take into account the surrounding circumstances, which in this case include at least the following matters:[17]
[17]See ss 3AAA, 4A(3) and 4E(3)(a) of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).
a)the nature and seriousness of the alleged offending, including whether it is a serious example of the offence;
b)the strength of the prosecution case;
c)the accused’s criminal history;
d)the extent to which the accused has complied with the conditions of any earlier grant of bail;
e)whether, at the time of the alleged offending, the accused was on bail for another offence;
f)the accused’s personal circumstances, associations, home environment and background;
g)any special vulnerability of the accused, including being in ill health or having a mental illness;
h)the length of time the accused is likely to spend in custody if bail is refused; and
i)the likely sentence to be imposed should the accused be found guilty of the offences with which the accused is charged.
In considering whether a risk of the kind alleged is an unacceptable risk, the Court must consider whether there are any conditions of bail that may be imposed to mitigate the risk so that it is not an unacceptable risk.[18]
Exceptional circumstances
[18]See s 4E(3)(b) of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).
Ms Swanson’s submissions
Ms Brown, who appears for Ms Swanson, submitted that the following matters amounted to exceptional circumstances justifying bail. First, it was said that the delay in reaching a contested hearing is likely to be such that the time Ms Swanson would spend in custody if not bailed would exceed any sentence of imprisonment imposed were she found guilty as charged. Second, Ms Brown submitted that there are weaknesses in the prosecution case on the trafficking charge. Third, she relied on the report produced by Mark Nelson on 5 October 2022 explaining that Ms Swanson has been accepted for case management by the Court Integrated Services Programme (“CISP”).
Police submissions
Mr Watt, who appears for the informant, conceded that it was open to find that exceptional circumstances exist which justify the granting of bail. He accepted that, if Ms Swanson were not bailed, it is likely that any period of imprisonment imposed on her would be exceeded by the period spent on remand awaiting a hearing. He also accepted that the prosecution case on trafficking is weak. Indeed, as I understood him, he was surprised that, given the circumstances alleged and that there was no charge of trafficking in butanediol against Mr Voight, the trafficking charge remained against Ms Swanson.
Consideration
For at least the following reasons, Ms Brown’s submission, and Mr Watt’s concession, about exceptional circumstances should be accepted.
First, even if Ms Swanson were found guilty of trafficking in butanediol and the other charges at a contested hearing, it is very likely that the period of time spent on remand before hearing[19] would well exceed any sentence of imprisonment, if such a sentence were imposed at all. Indeed, given the nature of the trafficking charge and the other charges, as well as Ms Swanson’s personal circumstances (including her drug use at the time) and limited criminal history, there is a real prospect that, if found guilty of all charges, she would receive a term of imprisonment not exceeding the period she has already spent in custody (a month or so) combined with a CCO, or perhaps just a CCO.[20]
[19]Which, in the affidavit filed on behalf of Ms Swanson, was estimated to be likely to approach a year.
[20]I say this notwithstanding the fact that, according to the report (dated 11 April 2022) alleging a breach of a CCO imposed upon her in March 2021, Ms Swanson incurred numerous unacceptable absences from attendances required by the order, and that she is “considered to fall in the high-risk category of recidivism”. Equally, the recommendation made in the report was not that the CCO be cancelled but that it be “varied to recommence, allowing [Ms Swanson] a further opportunity to engage in the required conditions of the [order]”.
Second, I accept that the prosecution case on trafficking in butanediol is weak. As we have seen, it is alleged that, as police approached, Mr Voight took from Ms Swanson’s handbag the lunchbox in which the bottle of butanediol was found, and that she denied knowledge of the contents of the lunchbox. In those circumstances, I am persuaded that the prosecution might well have considerable difficulty in proving beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Swanson knowingly and intentionally possessed the butanediol, which is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for proof of trafficking based on possession for sale.[21]
[21]This is so even if the prosecution successfully invoked s 5 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic) to assist in proof of possession. See, e.g., Momcilovic v The Queen (2011) 245 CLR 1 at 55[63]-59[74] (per French CJ), 97[190]-99[200] (per Gummow J), 123[280] (per Hayne J), 229[607]-230[612] (per Crennan and Kiefel JJ) & 253[697]-255[701] (per Bell J).
Even if the hurdle concerning possession were cleared, there still would be difficulty in proving that the butanediol was possessed by Ms Swanson for the purpose of sale. While it is alleged that police found deal bags, scales and a smoking pipe in Ms Swanson’s handbag, there seems to be no dispute that she was a heavy drug user. True it is that drug traffickers often sell drugs in deal bags and have scales to weigh what they are selling, but the same facts serve equally to prove that drug users purchase drugs in deal bags and may be concerned to ensure that the weight of what they are purchasing is as promised. Similarly, while the weight of the butanediol (which is likely to exceed a traffickable quantity) might be relied on, the amount is not such as to exclude possession for personal use. Further, the cash was in Mr Voight’s possession (in his wallet), not Ms Swanson’s, so that that discovery is unlikely to assist in proof of trafficking against her.[22]
[22]It seems to me that the same fact — namely, that the cash was found in the possession of Mr Voight, not Ms Swanson — means that there would be difficulty also in proving the charge that Ms Swanson dealt with property (namely, the cash) suspected of being proceeds of crime. While I heard no oral argument on the point, it was mentioned in the affidavit filed on behalf of Ms Swanson. The point, of course, remains valid irrespective of the settlement that has been reached with Mr Voight vis-à-vis his charge concerning the cash.
None of this is to say that trafficking butanediol (based on possession for sale) could not be proved against Ms Swanson. But, for the reasons I have given, I am persuaded that Ms Swanson has strongly arguable defences to the charge.[23]
[23]The same is true of the proceeds of crime charge. See the previous footnote.
If the trafficking charge were dismissed or withdrawn, it is all the more likely that Ms Swanson would not be sentenced to a term of imprisonment at all, for it is difficult to see how the remaining charges could warrant such a sentence in the circumstances of this particular case. In that event, any time spent in custody awaiting trial could only be harder to justify and all the more compelling a factor in establishing exceptional circumstances.
Finally, I should add that, while this is not a matter concerning the weakness of the case on the trafficking charge, it is at least surprising, and appears incongruous, that, in the circumstances described above, such a charge would be pursued against Ms Swanson when there is no corresponding charge against Mr Voight and his charge of trafficking in methylamphetamine has been withdrawn.[24]
Unacceptable risk
[24]On the other hand, while I was not told anything about this on the application, I can imagine that there might be other reasons explaining the different approaches thus far to Ms Swanson and Mr Voight vis-à-vis the butanediol — including Mr Voight’s account, if any, when interviewed. (The particular resolution of Mr Voight’s proceeds of crime charge may provide a clue in that respect.) That said, like Mr Watt, I find it surprising that the trafficking charge against Ms Swanson has not been withdrawn already. As explained in the affidavit material filed on behalf of the informant, Mr Voight has an extensive criminal history (far more extensive than Ms Swanson’s), including convictions for armed robbery (for which he received a sentence of four years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years), possessing various drugs of dependence (including methamphetamine, cocaine and cannabis), possessing various weapons (including prohibited and controlled weapons), resisting emergency services workers, dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime, committing indictable offences while on bail and failing to appear while on bail.
Ms Swanson’s submissions
On the question of unacceptable risk, Ms Brown submitted that, if bailed, while there is a risk that Ms Swanson would fail to appear or commit an offence while on bail, there are several reasons why that risk is not unacceptable. It was also submitted that there is no risk (or no unacceptable risk) that Ms Swanson would endanger others.
First, counsel relied on the same surrounding circumstances raised in respect of the exceptional circumstances test. She also pointed out that, while Ms Swanson has a modest criminal history for offences of dishonesty, and one of violence, she has no prior convictions for trafficking drugs. As I understood the argument, these points went to a submission that an assessment of whether any risk in bailing Ms Swanson might be unacceptable should take into account the likelihood that, were bail refused, she would be held in custody for a period well beyond the duration of any term of imprisonment that might be imposed on her, if found guilty at a contested hearing.
Next, Ms Brown conceded that Ms Swanson has a recent history of poor compliance with bail conditions, two prior convictions for offending while on bail,[25] and a history of illicit drug use. She submitted, however, that the risks arising from those facts are ameliorated by the following matters. First, she has temporary accommodation to go to with her partner (who is not her co-accused). The arrangements are only temporary at this stage because the two are in the early stages of their relationship. Second, alternative accommodation would be arranged by CISP, if that became necessary. Third, since CISP would also assist Ms Swanson with drug counselling and other rehabilitative measures, the risk of her failing to appear at court, failing to comply with any reporting condition or committing offences while on bail would be significantly reduced. Fourth, Ms Brown proposed conditions of bail (including requirements to report to police and comply with directions from CISP) that, in her submission, would ameliorate the risks asserted.
[25]In the affidavit filed on behalf of the informant, it is also said that Ms Swanson “was also wanted on a bench warrant for failing to appear on summons in relation to contravening her [CCO]”. As I pointed out in an earlier footnote, however, it is not said in the breach report that she would be unsuitable for a further CCO; rather, it is recommended that she be given a further opportunity to comply with the order.
Finally, in affidavit material filed on behalf of the informant, it is suggested that, as Ms Swanson has a prior conviction for an offence of violence involving the use of a weapon, and a folding knife was in her possession when she was arrested, she poses an unacceptable risk of obtaining such an item again, and of resorting to its use, thereby endangering the welfare of others. However, Ms Brown pointed out that, while Ms Swanson has a prior conviction for intentionally causing injury, the offence did not involve the use of a weapon. Further, in her submission, the asserted risk is tenuous, at best, and in any event could not be said to be unacceptable.
Police submissions
While I took Mr Watt to maintain the prosecution opposition to bail, when I indicated that I doubted that the asserted risks were unacceptable and that I was disposed to grant bail, he made submissions on matters (including conditions of bail) that might go to ameliorate the risks alleged.
For example, he pointed out that, contrary to the conditions of her existing bail undertaking, Ms Swanson had failed to report to police nine times between 5 June and 1 August. But he accepted that, if bailed with a condition to engage with CISP, Ms Swanson would be more likely to comply with a reporting condition, appear at court when required and (as I understood him) refrain from using illicit drugs or committing other offences. Mr Watt also conceded that it was significant that the CISP report indicated that, while she had had a previous hiccup (in April 2020), Ms Swanson had completed CISP successfully a year later. In his submission, a requirement to report to police once a week would strike a sufficient balance between, on the one hand, the need to allow police to keep tabs on Ms Swanson and to remind her of the significance of her situation and, on the other, the utility of reducing the risk of setting her up to fail with conditions that may be too onerous.
As for the risk of endangering others, Mr Watt pointed out that, contrary to the assertion in the affidavit material, Ms Swanson’s prior conviction for intentionally causing injury did not involve her stabbing a person with a weapon. Instead, the injury was, he said, “by way of assault only”; and, while Ms Swanson was in possession of a box cutter when arrested, it was not alleged that she used it.[26]
[26]It seems that, while initially it was alleged that Ms Swanson used the box cutter to stab the complainant in the bicep, that allegation (and an associated charge) was withdrawn and, upon the plea hearing, the police summary was amended so as to remove all references to any such stabbing (which had been denied).
Mr Watt raised the possibility of a non-association requirement in respect of Mr Voight. In the end, he submitted that such a condition of bail would be an unnecessary, given that Mr Voight is in custody (where he is expected to remain until November), and is not a witness in Ms Swanson’s case.
Consideration
Again, I accept the submissions of Ms Brown and the concessions made by Mr Watt.
Given Ms Swanson’s poor compliance with bail conditions in the past, her criminal history (limited though it is), her history of illicit drug use, and the circumstances of her arrest on this occasion, I am satisfied that there is a risk of her failing to appear at court and of committing offences while on bail.
However, I am not satisfied that those risks are unacceptable. Instead, I am persuaded that those risks are acceptable or in any event that they are rendered acceptable by the conditions of bail proposed. Those conditions include that Ms Swanson is to reside at a particular address (at least until CISP finds her another); that she is to obey all lawful directions given by CISP case workers; and that she is to report to police once a week. Given CISP’s positive report, I am confident that Ms Swanson will be given adequate assistance with respect to accommodation, drug rehabilitation, mental health services and organisation of her life generally, including reminders to report on bail and appear at court.
I am not persuaded that there is any meaningful risk that Ms Swanson will endanger others. Of course, she might. But a prior conviction for an offence of violence (without the use of a weapon), even when coupled with possession of a knife at her arrest on this occasion, does not, in my opinion, give rise to the level of risk asserted. If, however, I am wrong about that, I cannot see that any such risk is sufficient to render it unacceptable. Moreover, engagement in CISP is likely to offset any risk of this kind.
Further, Ms Swanson has had the experience of spending over a month in custody since her arrest on the current charges. This, it might be expected, has provided a period of enforced abstinence from daily drug use, as well as the salutary experience of custodial life, which has been all the more onerous during the pandemic. I expect that Ms Swanson is likely to be as ready as she has been in her short life to accept the services offered by CISP to assist her in a genuine attempt at rehabilitation. Equally, she will understand that, if she fails to take advantage of those supports and breaches her conditions of bail or commits offences, there is a high risk that she will be arrested, charged and refused bail again. While there is no certainty that she will succeed in her rehabilitative endeavour — history shows many with long-term drug problems fail, and repeatedly so, to maintain abstinence or even curb their usage — Ms Swanson has a powerful motivation to give it her best.
Finally, I accept Ms Brown’s submission that whether the asserted risks are unacceptable must be considered against the reality that, even if found guilty of all of the offences charged, it is likely that the period spent in custody, if Ms Swanson were not bailed, would exceed any prison sentence imposed upon her.[27] In my view, despite the risks that exist, it would be unacceptable, at least in a case like the present, to keep an accused in custody on charges beyond the period that the law would require by way of sentence upon conviction on the charged offences. In cases like the present, if the criminal justice system cannot deal with a case speedily enough to avoid an unsatisfactory outcome of that kind, bail must be granted.
[27]See, e.g., Mokbel v DPP (No 3) (2002) 133 A Crim R 141 at 143[10] (per Kellam J).
Conclusion and order
In those circumstances, I am satisfied that the application for bail should be granted.
Ms Swanson will be admitted to bail upon her own undertaking and with conditions that she:
a)is to reside at […], Delacombe, Victoria, or otherwise at an address as directed by the Court Integrated Services Program (“CISP”);
b)is to obey all lawful directions given by CISP case workers;
c)is to report to Ballarat Police Station every Monday between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.; and
d)is to appear at the Ballarat Magistrates’ Court for mention at 9:30 a.m. on 2 November 2022.
I should add that I agree with Mr Watt that a non-association condition on bail is unnecessary. In those circumstances, it is a matter for Ms Swanson to decide with whom she associates. That said, I would offer that she might do well, if she can, to refrain from associating with Mr Voight or any others who may have drug-related problems, at least until her own circumstances have improved to the point that she can resist the pull of illicit drug use and all that tends to go with it.
----
0