Re Troselj
[2022] VSC 241
•3 May 2022
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2022 0089
| IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) |
| and |
| IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by ANN-MARIE TROSELJ |
---
JUDGE: | Fox J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 28 April 2022 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 3 May 2022 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Re Troselj |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VSC 241 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Bail application – Aggravated burglary – Exceptional circumstances – Delay – Exceptional circumstances established by a combination of factors – Unacceptable risk alleged – Availability of supports – Risk not unacceptable if granted bail with conditions – Bail granted – Bail Act 1977 (Vic), ss 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4D and 4E.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr M Cookson at the hearing of 28 April 2022 Ms E Fargher at the hearing of 3 May 2022 | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Ms A Hancock | Giorgianni & Liang Lawyers |
HER HONOUR:
Ann-Marie Troselj applies for bail on charges of aggravated burglary (intent to assault); aggravated burglary (intent to steal); false imprisonment; common law assault; intentionally cause injury; assault with a weapon; unlawful assault and commit an indictable offence whilst on bail.
The alleged offending
On 20 April 2021 at around 5:45pm, the applicant attended the apartment of Kellie Burnell (‘the complainant’), who she has known since 2011. The applicant knocked on the door, however the complainant pretended she was not home. After a period of silence, the complainant went outside to see if the applicant had left. The applicant appeared from around the corner. She grabbed the complainant by the throat, forced her inside the apartment and locked the door.
Whilst inside, the applicant made demands for a key card, threw items and pushed the complainant around. She also asked the complainant if there were any drugs in the house. At some point, the applicant stabbed the complainant in the back with a pair of blue-handled scissors that were on the coffee table, and bit her on the top of the head. The applicant and complainant were in the apartment for approximately ten minutes before the complainant was able to leave and contact police. Police located two pairs of blue-handled scissors in the apartment and seized the complainant’s jumper which had a hole in it, both of which are alleged to be consistent with the complainant’s account. CCTV footage shows the applicant entering the lift of the complainant’s apartment complex, on the same floor as the apartment, holding a pair of scissors at 6:29pm.
On 26 April 2021, police located and arrested the applicant. The applicant provided a mostly ‘no comment’ interview, however stated that the scissors that she was holding in the CCTV footage belonged to her, and were in her handbag at home. She was remanded into custody.
Other matters
At the time of the alleged offending, the applicant was on bail for three other matters, and charged on summons with one further matter. These other matters have since resolved in the Magistrates’ Court.
On 26 May 2021, the applicant was dealt with for a consolidation of offences including dishonesty, breaches of bail, public disorder and property offences and sentenced to an effective total sentence of six months’ imprisonment, with 44 days reckoned as time already served.
On 20 September 2021, the applicant was convicted at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court of theft from a shop and commit an indictable offence whilst on bail, and fined an aggregate of $200.
Procedural history
The applicant was refused bail on 5 November 2021 at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court.
On 7 February 2022, the committal hearing in this matter commenced and was adjourned part-heard to 31 May 2022.
The applicable legislation
The applicant is accused of Schedule 2 offences[1] which are alleged to have been committed whilst she was on bail for Schedule 2 offences. Therefore bail must be refused unless the applicant satisfies the Court that exceptional circumstances exist which justify the grant of bail.[2] In considering whether exceptional circumstances exist, the Court must take into account all of the relevant surrounding circumstances, including those set out in s 3AAA of the Bail Act 1977 (‘Act’).[3]
[1]Two charges of aggravated burglary (sch 2, item 22(b)) and commit an indictable offence whilst on bail (sch 2, item 30).
[2]Ibid, ss 4AA(2)(c)(i), 4A(1)-(2).
[3]Ibid, s 4A(3).
If satisfied to the requisite standard, the Court must then consider the unacceptable risk test.[4] The Court must refuse bail if satisfied by the respondent that there is a risk of the kind set out in s 4E(1)(a) of the Act, and that such a risk is unacceptable.[5] In considering whether a risk is unacceptable, the Court must again have regard to the surrounding circumstances and consider whether there are any conditions of bail that may be imposed to mitigate any risk so that it is not unacceptable.[6]
[4]Ibid, s 4D(1)(a).
[5]Ibid, ss 4D(2)-(3), 4E(1)-(2).
[6]Ibid, s 4E(3).
The applicant’s personal circumstances
The applicant is a 52 year old woman, born in May 1969. Her history, as described in the material, is somewhat inconsistent. According to a detailed 2019 report, the applicant’s childhood was marred by her father’s drinking, and he was physically and psychologically abusive on a weekly basis. The applicant left home at age 16 to escape her father’s violence, and married her ex-partner, with the marriage ending a couple of years later. The applicant has two adult daughters, born 1991 and 2001. She maintains a relationship with her elder daughter Tifany; her younger daughter wants no contact.
Between the ages of 23 and 33 the applicant was in a relationship with a man involved in drug trafficking. It was during this time that she began using heroin on a daily basis which continued into her 40s. In her late 30s, she was in a relationship marred by family violence, including an incident whereby her partner beat her and poured boiling water over her head. Hospital records from 2007 confirm she was badly assaulted, including being kicked and punched to the head to the point of unconsciousness. In 2009, aged 40, the applicant was again in a violent relationship with another man, being the co-accused in the 2010 County Court matter. He was also domineering and violent. However once remanded and sober, the applicant co-operated with authorities and gave evidence for the prosecution against her former partner and co-accused.
The applicant is on the methadone program and reports not using heroin for approximately seven years. Following her abstinence from heroin, the applicant began misusing alcohol which remains an ongoing issue for her.
The applicant has previously worked as a beauty therapist. Following the assault by her partner, she became eligible for, and has been in receipt of, a disability support pension. The applicant was diagnosed with ADHD in adulthood and has other previous diagnoses including post-traumatic stress disorder.
Criminal history
The applicant has a criminal history spanning 1995 to 2021 for offences of dishonesty, using and possessing drugs of dependence, loitering for prostitution, robbery, armed robbery, burglary, causing injury and serious injury intentionally, failing to answer bail, assault police and commit an indictable offence whilst on bail. She has received the full range of sentencing dispositions over this 25 year period.
The applicant has three County Court appearances from 2003, 2006 and 2010. On all occasions she received terms of imprisonment. In 2010 she was convicted of intentionally causing serious injury, attempted robbery and assault. These offences were committed together with her then-partner. She was sentenced to five years, six months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years, nine months’ imprisonment.
More recently, since February 2019, she has been dealt with by way of fine or adjourned undertaking for offences including shop-theft, committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, contravening a conduct condition of bail, and being drunk in a public place. She was most recently imprisoned after this alleged offending in May 2021, as referred to above.
The informant’s evidence
The informant was cross-examined about what occurred at committal. The informant agreed the complainant did not want the applicant to be locked up. The complainant is concerned with the applicant’s alcohol use and if there is no alcohol, she would have no concerns. The informant agreed the complainant said the applicant was looking for her own key card (that is, the applicant’s key card). The complainant also said, for the first time, that the applicant entered twice. He agreed this was inconsistent with the complainant’s statement. He agreed the complainant had a drug addiction at the time of the alleged offending, and has an acquired brain injury. He did not recall what the complainant said about her lock, but it appears broken in the photographs taken after the alleged incident. Overall, he had limited recollection of what occurred at the committal.
The applicant’s contentions
The applicant relies on a combination of factors to establish exceptional circumstances.
Although it is conceded that the alleged offending is serious, the applicant submits that it is not the most serious example of this type of offending.
The applicant submits there are weaknesses in the prosecution case, including inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence given at committal. In particular, when cross-examined at committal, the complainant stated that the door on her apartment did not lock; the applicant entered twice, on the first occasion she was looking for her own key card; she gave the applicant permission to look through her things; and a second female came in with the applicant. On the second occasion the applicant entered, the complainant said she was sitting on the ground, which is inconsistent with her allegation that the applicant grabbed her throat and pushed her backwards. The applicant submits a jury is unlikely to accept the complainant’s version of events beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that body camera footage of police on the night record police commenting that the complainant was “nuts” and “changing her story”. Overall, the applicant submits the prosecution case on the most serious charges of aggravated burglary and false imprisonment is weak.
It is conceded that the applicant has a relevant criminal history.
It is also conceded that the applicant has breached previous grants of bail. However positively, the applicant successfully completed 15 months of parole from June 2014 until September 2015. Between completing parole and these alleged offences, the applicant was dealt with by way of fine or adjourned undertakings.
The applicant has significant support available to her in the community. She has been accepted by the Jesuit Social Services ReConnect program to support her transition from custody into the community. Ms O’Connor of that service states that she will support the applicant with housing, a working phone, access to her Centrelink payments and medications, as well as encouraging her to engage with her broader care team and making referrals to other services as required. The applicant will also continue to receive mental health and methadone support with her GP, and has significant NDIS funding available to her which was approved while she has been on remand.
The applicant’s mother and daughter Tifany are willing to provide additional support if the applicant is granted bail, including assisting her to attend appointments and financial assistance.
The applicant has private rental accommodation at 11/131 High Street, Thomastown, which would be at risk if she remains in custody. The rent is in arrears and there is a VCAT hearing listed for 13 May 2022. Ms Sheppard, from Women’s Housing Ltd, confirms that the applicant is at “high risk of eviction” if not released prior to that date. If the applicant loses her rental accommodation, it is not known when she may obtain further housing. Women’s Housing can provide temporary accommodation, likely to be for up to four weeks in a crisis accommodation hotel.
The delay in this matter is likely to be in the vicinity of three years from charge until trial, assuming the applicant is committed in May this year. Even allowing for the six months the applicant spent serving the sentence she received in May 2021, this still amounts to an inordinate delay. The applicant submits that any time on remand will likely exceed any non-parole period she will receive if convicted of the most serious offences. If she is acquitted of those charges, the time spent on remand may exceed the ultimate sentence imposed.
It is submitted that conditions in custody are more onerous due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes multiple lockdowns, reduced access to programs and restricted in-person visits.
The attitude of the complainant is a relevant circumstance. Additionally, the complainant has the protection of an intervention order.
The applicant relies on the same factors in support of the submission that the respondent has not established that the applicant is an unacceptable risk of committing further offences whilst on bail, or endangering the welfare and safety of any person. The applicant submits that any risk can be rendered acceptable through the imposition of conditions, including a fixed residence, reporting, and not contacting prosecution witnesses.
The respondent’s contentions
The respondent submits that exceptional circumstances have not been shown, and even if the applicant clears that hurdle, she poses an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of any person; committing an offence whilst on bail; and/or failing to answer her bail. This last risk was not pressed at the hearing.
The respondent submits there is no transcript of the complainant’s committal evidence, and the informant gave evidence of only two inconsistencies. There is otherwise no evidentiary basis for the applicant’s assertions as to what the complainant said at committal, and what concessions were obtained. The complainant’s account is supported by the hole in her jumper, and the CCTV footage showing the applicant with scissors. It is not an overwhelming case, however there is no material which would allow the Court to find it is attended by significant weaknesses.
On the question of delay, the respondent submits that the practice in the County Court is “significantly different” from 12 months ago, and they are “listing things very quickly”. The respondent gave an example that on 13 April this year, he received a trial date of 29 August 2022 for an in-custody aggravated carjacking trial. When asked if this was something of an anomaly, the respondent submitted it was “not the only date in 2022 that I’ve received”, although it may be there was an unexpected listing gap. The respondent submits that on a “worst-case scenario”, the trial would be sometime next year, resulting in an overall delay of 12 to 18 months once the time spent serving the six month sentence is deducted.
The respondent confirms that an Interim Personal Safety Intervention Order is in force to protect the complainant, which contains full non-contact conditions. The respondent does not dispute what is said by the applicant as to the complainant’s attitude to bail.
The respondent notes that the applicant was subject to bail at the time of the alleged offending, and has a history of offending whilst on bail, and breaching bail conduct conditions.
The respondent submits there is an unacceptable risk of the applicant endangering the safety and welfare of any person. The respondent is of the view that the applicant poses such a risk as she is alleged to have committed assault related offences, and has previously been convicted of similar offences.
If granted bail, the informant agrees that the bail conditions proposed by the applicant will reduce risk, albeit not to an acceptable level. The respondent concedes that the applicant will have ‘a lot’ of support in place from her family, NDIS and the ReConnect program, however is of the view that such support does not address her issues with alcohol and thus does not reduce risk to an acceptable level. A condition that she not consume alcohol would reduce risk, but again not to an acceptable level.
Delay
Following the respondent’s submission, I adjourned the matter for a short period and gave the parties an opportunity to file any additional material or submissions relevant to delay. The respondent’s submission struck me as unusual, as even before the pandemic, a delay of at least 12 months between committal and trial was commonplace.
On the return date, the respondent clarified that the example given at the hearing involved an 18 year old offender, charged with a category A offence alleged to have been committed when he was 17, and in circumstances where summary jurisdiction had been sought and refused. The offender was in custody for the first time and being held in adult prison. The respondent agreed the matter had “some fairly unusual priority factors”.
The applicant made inquiries with the County Court. The applicant was advised that the County Court cannot provide an estimate of when the applicant’s trial would likely be listed, as once committed, the matter is allocated to a division lawyer for initial case management. It then proceeds to directions hearing and case management by a Judicial Officer, prior to any consideration being given to listing for trial. The County Court is not currently providing trial dates at the initial directions hearing. The applicant submits that a trial listing approximately 18 months post-committal is likely, and two years from committal is a “realistic likelihood”.
The respondent also made email inquiries with the County Court. The “Revised Melbourne criminal trial listings (as at July 2021)” document projects that “the earliest the Court expects a new initiation from 2022 to be listed for trial is July 2023”. When pressed by the respondent for a “more realistic approximate”, the County Court advised that they were unable to definitively answer this question without knowing more information. However, they advised that the County Court has some capacity to list trials as early as August this year. If there is no “pressing priority”, a trial could be accommodated “mid-October at earliest”.
The respondent’s email asked when it could be expected that a 5-7 day single accused trial, in custody, would be listed. The County Court was not advised by the respondent that the applicant’s matter is currently pre-committal. It is therefore difficult to know what the County Court understood by the inquiry. A trial where the accused is in custody attracts some priority, however this is not a sexual offence or a matter involving young or vulnerable witnesses. I am not prepared to find, without more, that the applicant’s matter would bypass the usual case management process. I can see no reason why that would occur in this matter, given the success of case management and the issues in this case.
Assuming the committal concludes at the end of May 2022, it will be June 2022 before the applicant’s matter first reaches the County Court. In the circumstances of this matter, I consider it very unlikely the applicant will be given a trial date this year. I proceed on the basis that the applicant’s trial is most likely to be towards the end of 2023, or in the first half of 2024. This would result in an approximate overall delay between charge and trial of two and half to three years.
Analysis
The Act does not define what may amount to exceptional circumstances. For the circumstances to be exceptional, the circumstances relied upon must be such as to take the case out of the normal, so as to justify the admission of the applicant to bail. The threshold is high, but it is not an impossible standard. Exceptional circumstances may be established by a combination of factors which, by themselves, may not be considered exceptional.[7]
[7]See, eg, Re CT [2018] VSC 559, [64]–[66] and the cases referred to therein.
On the material I have, there are triable issues between the parties. The prosecution case relies substantially, if not wholly, on the complainant’s evidence. On the charge of aggravated burglary (intent to steal), the prosecution case appears quite weak. On the other charges, including aggravated burglary (intent to assault), the prosecution case may have some difficulties, although ultimately it will be a matter for a jury. On the material I have, the overall strength of the prosecution case is a factor that neither hinders, nor helps, the applicant.
I acknowledge the applicant contests the charges and the allegations are unproven. However, I am required to take into account the nature and seriousness of the alleged offending, including whether it is a serious example of the offence. The charges of false imprisonment and aggravated burglary are serious charges, but as alleged, they are not the most serious examples of those offences.
The applicant has a considerable criminal history, including periods of imprisonment and breaching court orders. She also has a history of positive engagement with support services, including whilst on parole. She has been in custody now for just over a year, and appears to have engaged positively with services aimed at assisting her to return safely to the community.
As noted above, I find that the time from committal to trial is likely to be around 18 months, perhaps longer. This would mean an overall delay from charge to trial of at least two and a half years, accepting that six months of that time was served by way of sentence. If convicted of the most serious offences, the applicant’s time on remand may exceed any non-parole period, but is unlikely to exceed a head sentence. Nonetheless, the delay in this matter is still significant. Two of the guiding principles to which I must have regard are the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty. The fact the applicant’s time on remand may not – if she is ultimately convicted – exceed the term of her sentence, does not mean that a lengthy and uncertain delay between charge and trial is not significant. And of course, the applicant may be acquitted of the more serious charges.
In Roberts v The Queen [2021] VSCA 28, the appellant had spent more than 20 years in custody for convictions which had been quashed, and faced a retrial. The Court of Appeal stated:
[9] A review of bail decisions in ‘exceptional circumstances’ cases reveals certain types of circumstances which recur as justifications for bail in such cases: unreasonable delay before trial; unacceptable adverse impacts of continued pre-trial incarceration (whether on the accused person or on his/her dependants); and the likelihood that time spent on remand will exceed any term of imprisonment which would be imposed in the event of conviction. What these different kinds of circumstances appear to have in common is that they are capable of rendering continued pre-trial incarceration unjust, notwithstanding the statutory prohibition on bail which otherwise applies.
[10] The informing principle seems to be clear: if continued incarceration before trial would be productive of injustice, then a grant of bail may be justified (subject always to the separate question of “unacceptable risk”). The bail decision maker is thus looking to the future, considering the likely consequences of the continued incarceration of the applicant for bail. Past events may be relevant to that consideration, as in the cases concerning pre-trial delay, but what justifies bail is the need to prevent or mitigate future injustice.[8]
[8][2021] VSCA 28, [9]-[10].
Here, the applicant currently has housing through Women’s Housing Ltd, a support service providing housing to women who have been incarcerated. The applicant’s long-term friend and sometimes-partner, Mr Lekic, has been attending the premises and assisting, but the rent is in arrears. Together, the applicant and Mr Lekic could afford the rent. There is a VCAT hearing on 13 May 2022, and if the applicant is not in custody, it is highly likely the Corrections Victoria Brokerage Program will assist the applicant to pay the arrears and retain her housing. If she does not return home prior to the VCAT hearing, there is a high risk of eviction.
The applicant is in her early 50s. She has had the premises for two and a half years, and has a history of suffering serious domestic violence. I note that in 2019, the applicant was living with a “male friend” who was emotionally controlling and abusive; the situation was identified by her First Step, St Kilda worker as “problematic”, and safer accommodate was sought. It was then that the applicant moved to her current home. She and her mother are on the lease. In my view, the loss of her housing, which provides some stability and safety, would seriously and adversely affect the applicant. She would likely be rendered homeless, and forced into short-term, temporary crisis accommodation.
Conditions in custody continue to be more difficult, onerous and isolating as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Restrictions may have eased at times, but overall conditions on remand remain adversely impacted by COVID-19, and prisoners must endure less freedom within the prison system, and less access to friends and family.
A positive development which has occurred since the applicant was remanded is the grant of NDIS funding. If used as intended, that funding will assist the applicant to live lawfully in the community. It will also assist her to access support services and address her mental health and alcohol problems. The applicant is supported by her elder daughter, who has observed positive changes in her mother since she was remanded. Ms O’Connor, of Jesuit Social Services, describes the applicant as having a “vast care team in place to support her upon release”.
I find for a combination of reasons, including delay, the real risk of loss of the applicant’s housing, the onerous conditions in custody resulting from the pandemic and the recent grant of significant NDIS funding, that exceptional circumstances justifying the applicant’s release on bail have been established.
I turn to the question of unacceptable risk.
Here, the risk of the applicant reoffending is real. This much was not really disputed. There is also some risk of the applicant endangering the safety and welfare of a person, if she does reoffend when intoxicated. The key questions are whether the risk is unacceptable, and whether there are any conditions that may be imposed to mitigate the risk so that it is not an unacceptable risk.
Delay remains relevant at this stage of the bail process. As stated by Kellam J in Mokbel v DPP (No 3),[9] the issue of detention by reason of unacceptable risk must be balanced with the likelihood of an accused being tried in the near future. An actual or anticipated delay may be of such a magnitude that risks which would, in other circumstances, be unacceptable, may properly be viewed as acceptable.[10]
[9][2002] VSC 393, [13].
[10]Barbaro v DPP (Cth) & Anor (2009) 20 VR 717, [41] (Maxwell P, Vincent and Kellam JJA).
The applicant’s history of compliance with bail is of concern. Her success on parole is encouraging, but her recent lack of compliance post-dates her parole period. The applicant committed these alleged offences whilst on three sets of bail, in circumstances where she had disconnected from support services and was drinking alcohol to excess. The applicant is willing to agree to a condition that she not consume alcohol. Compliance with this condition would meaningfully reduce risk; however, such a condition is difficult to monitor, which tempers its effectiveness.
The applicant has access to considerable support through the ReConnect Program. Ms O’Connor from that service will assist the applicant to contact those supports, including attending a GP with a view to obtaining a mental health care plan, accessing NDIS and encouraging her to engage with alcohol counselling. However the ReConnect Program is voluntary, and at best a condition can be made that the applicant engage with the ReConnect Program. The applicant has a history of positive engagement with First Step, St Kilda, and they have arranged an appointment with a GP, Dr Query, which will occur tomorrow if the applicant is released on bail. First Step will then consider booking appointments with further services. A troubling feature of this application is that whilst there are many supports available, there is little actually currently in place, or that can be mandated by way of bail conditions.
The applicant has substantial NDIS funding available to her, which will assist to ensure she receives the necessary supports. Nothing concrete is currently in place, given the applicant has been in custody, however the available funding is substantial.
The likely loss of housing continues to be a relevant circumstance when considering whether any risk is unacceptable. It is no small thing for the applicant to lose her home if she remains in custody, in circumstances where she has been a victim of domestic violence, and where past abusive relationships have significantly contributed to her offending.
The applicant submitted a curfew would go some way to ameliorating risk. I expressed some doubt about this, given the alleged offending was committed around 6:00pm. However upon reflection, I accept a curfew would assist to reduce risk, as it would ensure the applicant was at least at home, and not out drinking, during the night. A reporting condition would also serve as a continual reminder to the applicant that she is on bail, and allow the police to observe her presentation on a regular basis.
The question of what constitutes an unacceptable risk is not easily answered. As the Court of Appeal has observed, when considering whether an applicant for bail poses an unacceptable risk in the ways alleged, reasonable minds may well differ on the result.[11] The applicant here has been in custody and sober now for over a year. She has substantial support available in the community. Since being remanded, she has received a sizeable grant of NDIS funding that will give her access to supports that she has not had previously. She will consent to a condition whereby she does not drink alcohol, a curfew, and regular reporting. She has the support of her mother and elder daughter. If not bailed, she will likely lose her rental accommodation.
[11]Ali El Nasher v DPP [2020] VSCA 144, [51]-[52].
In all the circumstances, I am not satisfied that the applicant is an unacceptable risk in the ways alleged by the respondent if released on bail with strict conditions.
The applicant will be granted bail on her own undertaking and on the following conditions:
(1)She attend the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 31 May 2022 at 9:30am and then surrender herself, 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 herself into custody.
(2)She reside at 11/131 High St, Thomastown, in the State of Victoria (“residence”).
(3)She report to the Officer in Charge, or their nominee, at the Reservoir Police Station every Monday and Thursday between the hours of 6:00am and 8:00pm.
(4)She remain and be present at the place of residence between the hours of 9:00pm and 6:00am (“curfew hours”), each day for the duration of the bail.
(5)She present herself at the front door of her place of residence during curfew hours upon the reasonable request of a member of Victoria Police.
(6)She not possess or use a drug of dependence within the meaning of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic) without lawful authorisation under that Act.
(7)She not consume alcohol.
(8)She contact a National Disability Insurance Scheme (‘NDIS’) worker within 72 hours of her release, and thereafter attend all appointments as directed by a NDIS worker or their nominee.
(9)She attend at the Discount Drug Pharmacy, Lalor, within 24 hours of release to obtain her methadone prescription and thereafter continue to take methadone as prescribed.
(10)She attend her appointment with Dr Query at 1:30pm on Wednesday 4 May 2022, and thereafter attend any appointments arranged for her by First Step, St Kilda.
(11)She engage with the Jesuit Social Services ReConnect Program, and accept and engage with all supports offered by the ReConnect program.
(12)She not contact or associate with, either directly or indirectly, Kellie Burnell, or any other witness for the prosecution, except the Informant.
(13)She surrender any passports or other travel documents to the Informant within 24 hours of release and not apply for others.
(14)She not leave the State of Victoria.
(15)She not attend any points of international departure.
0
5
0