Applicant v Respondent

1 On 18 September 2020, Kane Turner[1] was arrested and charged with numerous dishonesty offences, including using counterfeit money, and some driving and bail offences. He also faces other outstanding charges of a similar nature. In his 20s, he led a relatively conventional life, with a good job as a tradesman. For the last seven years or so, however, Mr Turner has struggled with a cycle of methamphetamine addiction, criminal offending, and community-based dispositions or imprisonment.

2 This morning, I heard his application for bail. I ordered that he be bailed, on Wednesday, to a residential drug rehabilitation programme at Odyssey House. I was satisfied that he had established compelling reasons justifying bail, principally because of his preparedness to undertake intensive residential treatment in circumstances where his drug addiction was the principal cause of his criminal offending. Further, I was unpersuaded that there was an unacceptable risk that he would offend on bail or that he would fail to appear at court, particularly given the powerful incentive he has to comply with the strict conditions of his programme at Odyssey and the other conditions of bail that I fixed.

3 In short, I have determined that, instead of leaving him in custody at this point, it is preferable to allow Mr Turner to be on bail in order to pursue an important opportunity to do something positive in an attempt to recover and rehabilitate. In this way, I think there is, in the longer term, a better prospect of "maximising the safety of the community and persons affected by crime to the greatest extent possible", which is one of the guiding principles under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).[2] While there is, of course, a risk that this approach will come to nought, or worse, it is a risk worth taking in the name of community safety via recovery and rehabilitation.

4 I gave ex tempore reasons this morning. My more detailed and settled reasons follow now.

5 On the application, I heard viva voce evidence from the informant, Leading Senior Constable Keith Lill, who adopted the contents of his helpful report, which was exhibited to an affidavit filed by Meagan McDonnell, a solicitor with Victoria Police. The report contained summaries of (among other things):

(a) Mr Turner's alleged offending the subject of this application;

(d) his unsuccessful bail application in the Magistrates' Court; and

6 For the purposes of this judgment, it is unnecessary to go beyond parts of those summaries.

Alleged offending subject of this application

7 Prior to his arrest on 18 September 2020, Mr Turner had no fixed place of abode.

8 LSC Lill laid 36 charges against Mr Turner, 27 of which are for deception, fraud, theft, handling and possessing or using counterfeit currency offences; seven for driving offences; and two for committing indictable offences whilst on bail.

9 It is alleged that these offences were committed in the following ways. On several occasions between 27 May and 18 September 2020, Mr Turner produced and uttered counterfeit currency in the Geelong and Bellarine region. He used a laptop computer and a scanner-printer to print and copy the money. He then used $100-notes of the (counterfeit) money to buy cheap things (such as fast food), thereby receiving "clean" change.

10 He used a similar printing method to alter driving licences by replacing the original photographs with his own. He had been using the altered driving licences and buying stolen credit card details via the dark web to pay for stays at various short-term places of accommodation throughout the region.

11 Mr Turner drove about in an unregistered black Audi bearing various imitation number plates, which he bought online. Also, he was disqualified from driving during this period.

12 On 18 September 2020, Mr Turner was arrested by LSC Lill at a motel room in Geelong. He was in possession of keys to the Audi, a large quantity of labels to be used for printing, a laptop, a scanner-printer, counterfeit currency and altered driving licences. He has remained in custody ever since.

13 Mr Turner faces outstanding charges in other matters as well:

(a) On 28 October 2019, he was charged on summons with five driving offences, including driving whilst disqualified.

(b) On 20 November 2019, he was charged on summons with driving whilst disqualified.

(c) On 5 December 2019, he was arrested and bailed on nine charges comprising theft, possessing a controlled weapon, altering licences and dealing with proceeds of crime.

(d) On 13 October 2020, he was charged on summons with three offences of possessing and uttering counterfeit money and deception committed on 20 August 2020.

14 As I understood him, Mr Barreiro, who appeared for Mr Turner, expected that most or all of these other matters ultimately would resolve as pleas of guilty.

15 As we shall see shortly, however, there is a possible argument as to the admissibility of the evidence supporting many of the charges the subject of the present application for bail. Mr Barreiro indicated that he believed that matter would be unlikely to be listed for a contested hearing in the Magistrates' Court at Geelong before the middle of next year (although he considered it possible that an admissibility question might be dealt with at an earlier time). That, of course, then raises the question of delay, which I shall come to later.

16 As Mr Barreiro also pointed out, however, whether the matter ultimately proceeds as a contest or a plea of some description may well depend upon other considerations as well, including how Mr Turner is placed as a matter of rehabilitation at the relevant time. His state of rehabilitation, of course, is likely to be affected very much by whether he is granted bail and, if so, how he performs at Odyssey House in the interim.

17 Returning to the evidence of LSC Lill, Mr Turner has a criminal history spanning 2013 to 2018. Most of his prior convictions are for theft, handling, deception, counterfeiting, illicit drugs and driving offences. He has been sentenced to community correction orders ("CCOs") with rehabilitative conditions, suspended sentences, and a combined immediate prison sentence and CCO. He has also received sentences of immediate imprisonment, ranging in duration from seven days to ten months with a non-parole period of five months.[3] He breached many of the non-custodial orders. It is fair to say that his performance on those orders appears to have been very poor, in the main.

18 On 12 November 2020, the Magistrates' Court at Geelong refused Mr Turner's application for bail. The magistrate refused bail on the bases that Mr Turner had failed to show compelling reasons justifying bail and that there was an unacceptable risk that he would not surrender himself into custody if bailed.

Informant's bases for opposing bail in this Court

19 LSC Lill pointed out, correctly, that Mr Turner must show a compelling reason justifying a grant of bail. This is so (at least) because he is alleged to have committed an indictable offence while on bail for another indictable offence.[4] In Ms McDonnell's affidavit, it was submitted that Mr Turner had failed to discharge the onus of establishing compelling reasons.

20 Further, in his report, LSC Hill opined that Mr Turner was an unacceptable risk of committing an offence on bail.[5] Among his reasons supporting that view were Mr Turner's constant cycle of offending since 2013; his need to fund drug use through illicit means; and his failure to abide by previous court orders.

21 LSC Lill added that Mr Turner was also an unacceptable risk of failing to surrender into custody in accordance with his conditions of bail.[6] His reasons supporting that view included the length of sentence that Mr Turner faces even on the driving whilst disqualified offences alone and his proven capacity to create false identities.

Cross-examination of informant regarding strength of prosecution case

22 I turn now to the admissibility issue to which I alluded earlier.

23 Mr Barreiro cross-examined LSC Lill about the circumstances in which he came to be in the motel room when arresting Mr Turner on 18 September 2020 and conducting a search.

24 LSC Lill accepted that he was let into the motel room by the proprietor of the motel, not by Mr Turner. The proprietor had complained to police that, when a person had tried to pay for his stay, the motel received a notification from the bank that the transaction was fraudulent. When LSC Lill arrived at the motel, he was told by the proprietor that he was suspicious about the person in the room and his activities. While he did not have a warrant, LSC Lill believed he was acting under his powers under the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) to enter the room.[7]

Are you able to explain what considerations you made in deciding whether you had those powers?---Yes, so after discussion with the proprietor of the hotel, he instructed us um that the occupant was no longer lawfully allowed to be staying at his establishment due to the fraudulent payment. Um, so he allowed us entry into the room um to assist him in eviction of the occupant.

So your evidence then is that the purpose of your entry was to evict Mr Turner or the person who was there but at that stage, that wasn't the purpose for which you went in there?---Correct, yes, and to investigate obviously the offences of the fraud.

And to investigate an offence but you weren't sure whether an offence had been committed at that stage?---Um I had reasonable evidence, to believe on reasonable grounds that an offence had been committed due to the evidence obtained by the proprietor.

But the primary purpose was to effect an eviction with the permission of ‑ ‑ ‑?---Ah that's correct, yes.

26 Clearly enough, the point of this cross-examination was to establish the factual basis for a submission that LSC Lill's entry to, and search of, the room were unlawful. If that submission were upheld upon a voir dire at a contested hearing in the Magistrates' Court, then a question as to whether the evidence should be excluded, pursuant to s 138 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), would arise. This, in turn, was a matter that founded Mr Barreiro's submission that the prosecution case may be assessed as weak.

27 While I express no concluded view on the matter, it may well be arguable that entry with the primary purpose of effecting the (civil) eviction of a hotel guest and/or with the level of, or basis for, suspicion spoken of by LSC Lill was or were insufficient to render the entry and search lawful under the relevant provisions. Indeed, it is hard to see how a police-assisted civil eviction ever could justify such an entry and search by police. Mr Albore, who appeared for the informant, did not address this issue.

28 That said, it is unnecessary to say more, as the point was not at the forefront of Mr Barreiro's submissions. Further, as indicated earlier, the success of the application turned on the major plank of the application, which concerned an important opportunity for reform and rehabilitation. I turn now to the evidence of that opportunity.

29 Mr Barreiro called viva voce evidence from Nevada Cornwell, who had also provided a short report ahead of time.

30 Mr Cornwell is a senior drug and alcohol clinician and social worker. He is employed by Neami National, which is a major provider for the homeless in the Geelong region.

31 Mr Cornwell met Mr Turner through the housing service in April this year. In addition to assistance with housing, Mr Turner was offered the option of drug counselling, which he took up. During the assessment and counselling sessions, Mr Turner made it clear that he wished to undertake a long-term rehabilitation programme. Mr Cornwell agreed that that would be preferable to counselling and particularly suitable for him, so he made the necessary application to Odyssey House. While waiting for acceptance, which can sometimes take many months (if accepted at all), they continued with counselling sessions. They ended up having about 15 sessions between April and September.

32 As it happened, Mr Turner was arrested before his application to Odyssey was successful. He was then accepted before the unsuccessful bail application in the Magistrates' Court. Since then, however, in only recent times, Odyssey had made him a second offer. In her affidavit filed in support of Mr Turner's application, his solicitor Niamh Harrington exhibited a copy of a letter addressed to the Court from Odyssey, which confirmed that Mr Turner indeed had a place in their residential programme. Mr Cornwell, who had been in contact with Odyssey recently, explained that they were ready to receive Mr Turner on Wednesday 2 December.

33 Odyssey's letter also detailed that residents learn conflict resolution skills and relapse prevention, undertake group work and are allocated self-and-community-focused responsibilities as they progress through the programme levels. Residents also have urine screens three times per week and are required to adhere to particular rules, including no drug-taking, no alcohol consumption, no violence, no theft and no sex. Odyssey ejects those who do not comply. Moreover, the informant is advised if a resident absconds or is ejected.

34 Mr Cornwell outlined to Mr Turner just how structured, confronting and difficult it was for many to complete residential rehabilitation of this type. Indeed, he explained how, only recently, one client considered it harder than prison and opted for prison instead. Despite this, in Mr Cornwell's view, while Mr Turner did ask whether other residential options were available, he nevertheless exhibited a preparedness to undertake this intensive type of rehabilitation with Odyssey.

35 Mr Cornwell opined that Mr Turner had good "recovery capital". By that, he meant that, since Mr Turner had worked full time as a boilermaker in his 20s, had had a good career, appeared to have some "smarts" and was earning a good income before he turned to methamphetamine over these last seven years, he was the type who, when his positive attitude was considered as well, appeared to have a better chance of recovery than many others.

36 Mr Cornwell also made it clear, however, that history shows that those with long-term addiction to methamphetamine have a low recovery rate. Nevertheless, in his view, in addition to having good recovery capital, Mr Turner, at 37, is at an age where he understands that he must commit to drug rehabilitation, otherwise the cycle of addiction and offending and prison will just continue. He summed it up by saying, as he did to Mr Turner, "It's now or never."

37 While the minimum stay in residential rehabilitation at Odyssey is recommended to be four months, in Mr Cornwell's view, given the duration of his addiction, he would recommend that Mr Turner be there for as long as twelve months.

39 Mr Cornwell accepted that, while he was aware in general of the nature of Mr Turner's criminal history and his outstanding charges, he was not aware of all their details. In substance, he understood them to be mainly driving and deception charges. In his view, importantly, he did not have the sort of history that might disqualify him from residential rehabilitation, such as convictions for sexual, violent or arson offences.

40 Mr Cornwell was aware also that Mr Turner had been imprisoned in the past and that he had been placed on several CCOs, but not that they had had drug treatment and rehabilitation conditions. He also agreed that Mr Turner had not previously embraced the rehabilitative opportunities given to him.

41 Nevertheless, in Mr Cornwell's view, Mr Turner is at a point where he has to take the opportunity afforded to him, otherwise he will simply be gaoled over and over again. Further, despite Mr Turner's failures in the past, Mr Cornwell believes him when he says he wants to recover and make the necessary changes. He thinks his desire is strong. As he also said, whether Mr Turner does or does not achieve recovery, however, is entirely up to him (if he is given the chance).

42 Mr Barreiro made the following submissions on compelling reasons.

43 Mr Turner has a longstanding, crippling drug addiction. Whereas he has a qualification and work history as a boilermaker, in recent years, his life has spiralled out of control. In the lead-up to the current offending, Mr Turner was homeless, and floating between couches and motels in Geelong.

44 The alleged offending is a by-product of that. While it displays a level of sophistication, the amounts of money involved are at the lower end. He is far from a criminal mastermind. Indeed, his criminal history suggests that he is better at getting caught.

45 Mr Turner has a bed available at Odyssey House. He was self-referred. Mr Cornwell speaks highly of Mr Turner's desire to recover. Prior to his remand, Mr Turner was meeting with Mr Cornwell regularly. Mr Cornwell believes that Mr Turner's criminal behaviour is a by-product of his drug addiction, and that, if he ceases methamphetamine use, his offending will cease.

46 Therapeutic intervention at Odyssey seeks to address the underlying causes of criminal offending. It is a reputable facility, with a longstanding reputation for excellence and integrity. It provides access to a range of professional staff, including counsellors, psychologists, psychiatrists, doctors, nurses and social workers.

47 In and of itself, a bed at Odyssey is compelling, especially given the nature of the current alleged offending.

48 For the purposes of a bail application, the availability of residential rehabilitation is also relevant to ultimate sentence, and the assessment of risk. Should Mr Turner's stay at Odyssey be positive, the sentencing magistrate will have more options available. As it stands, Mr Tuner has failed on many CCOs. It is unlikely that, without drastic change, a magistrate would consider another one. By contrast, proven engagement in intensive treatment, over a period of months or longer, would allow a court to assess Mr Turner as having real, substantive prospects of rehabilitation.

49 In addition to its clear rehabilitative value, the punitive nature of residency in such a facility enlivens a separate sentencing discount. As Warren CJ, Kyrou JA and Redlich JA said in their joint judgment in Akoka v The Queen:[8]

Self-evidently, it is in the community's interest that offenders - particularly young offenders with substance abuse problems - seek assistance from residential rehabilitation facilities and complete the rigorous treatment programs that they offer. Offenders will be encouraged to seek residential treatment if it is understood that sentencing judges will acknowledge, and give credit for, the punitive nature of residency in such a facility. The extent of that credit will depend on the circumstances of each case, including the nature and severity of the restrictions to which an offender has been subject and the duration of the offender's residency.

50 Although credit is not granted "day-for-day" (like pre-sentence detention), it forms an important part of the application of the instinctive synthesis.

51 While it is conceded that there are aspects of Mr Turner's offending that are concerning, it is not at the level of seriousness whereby residential rehabilitation cannot reasonably be considered. This course of action provides Mr Turner (and thereby the community too) an opportunity to break the cycle.

52 Despite continually offending for the last seven years, Mr Turner retains the support of his parents. He speaks to them regularly on the phone from prison. They attended the hearing via Webex in support.

53 Mr Barreiro then turned to the question of unacceptable risk.

54 He conceded that there is some risk. But, with the structure, supervision and support available at Odyssey, he submitted that such risks are not unacceptable.

55 The informant rightly asserts that residents are not directly monitored 24 hours a day. But that is not the point. While not a prison, Odyssey's live-in facility provides an onerous level of supervision. It is more comprehensive than more common bail arrangements - such as staying with family or friends. Whereas family devotion can be a powerful reason not to report bail breaches, the Court can have utmost confidence that Odyssey will not be so kind. Residents at the facility are regularly accounted for. If Mr Turner were to leave or consume drugs, the informant would be told about it.

56 Mr Barreiro concluded his submissions in this way: In his report, the informant asserts that "the applicant has shown a constant cycle of offending since October 2013". That, in Mr Barreiro's submission, is a compelling reason to bail Mr Turner to Odyssey House. His participation in the residential programme at the facility will also ameliorate risk to the point where it is acceptable, in circumstances where, ultimately, there is longer-term risk to the community by not giving him an opportunity to break his drug addiction and live offence-free.

57 Mr Albore made the following submissions. They were no less persuasive for their admirable brevity.

58 In Mr Albore's submission, it is plain that Mr Turner has never really shown any commitment in the past to address his drug addiction, as is evidenced by his prior criminal history and his contraventions of CCOs, which had rehabilitative conditions attached. Further, he was offending during the period of counselling with Mr Cornwell. Neither fact bodes well for his ability to accept supervision within a residential facility.

59 Accordingly, in Mr Albore's submission, the Court should approach the questions whether compelling factors have been shown and whether the risks are unacceptable with a degree of caution.

60 Mr Albore also submitted that, given Mr Turner's proven ability to access false identities, the risk that he might fail to appear and be undetected is greater than usual.

61 Mr Turner, at the age of 37, has an extensive criminal history for offences of a similar nature to charges on which he is seeking bail. In the past, he has been imprisoned on occasions and placed on CCOs on others. While these dispositions may or may not have curbed his recidivism, it is plain enough that neither approach has eliminated it. Far from it. Indeed, on those simple facts, Mr Turner's chances of bail would be very bleak.

62 But, as we have seen, there was a good deal more to this application than that. Most notably, there is the evidence I have heard from Mr Cornwell about Mr Turner and about his place at Odyssey House. I accept that Mr Turner's criminal behaviour is largely a product of his addiction to methamphetamine. Mr Cornwell put the point with refreshing simplicity, but without undue certainty. He believes that, if Mr Turner ceases his use of methamphetamine, his criminal offending will cease too. Thus, the key is to be rid of his addiction.

63 Mr Cornwell also points out that, unlike many of those he sees with this type of addiction, Mr Turner had a history of hard work and success as a tradesman earlier in his life. It is really only since 2013 (at the age of about 30) that his criminal offending commenced. In Mr Cornwell's view, this gives him some chance of turning his life around and back to what it was seven or eight years earlier.

64 Mr Cornwell also explains that Mr Turner has been accepted into Odyssey House to participate in a long-term residential rehabilitation programme. Odyssey usually requires a minimum of four months of attendance before it is recommended that participants can leave the programme. In Mr Cornwell's view, Mr Turner would benefit greatly from such a programme by addressing his addiction. Indeed, he thinks he needs to be there for as long as twelve months. He also opined that Mr Turner was (and still is) looking forward to addressing his addiction in this way and that he appears genuine in his commitment.

65 Mr Cornwell impressed me as a witness. He was not unduly optimistic about Mr Turner's chances of recovery and reform. Indeed, he was quite realistic when he said that many in Mr Turner's position fail. He also explained just how difficult it is for many addicts to comply with the strictures of a place like Odyssey. But he is also of the view that Mr Turner is at that point in his life where he seems to understand that, unless he does something serious about his addiction, the cycle of drug use and offending and prison will just keep repeating itself.

66 While I too recognise that there is no guarantee that merely bailing Mr Turner to Odyssey will be a panacea for all his troubles, I think that, upon closer analysis, it is the only thing to do in this case. Indeed, I am affirmatively satisfied that he should be released on bail so that he may be afforded the opportunity to make a serious attempt at recovery and reform. While there is of course a risk that this option will fail miserably and that Mr Turner will return to illicit drug use and criminal offending, there is also a good enough chance that it will set him on the road to long-term recovery and reform.

67 In my opinion, the alternative is unpalatable. While refusing bail would protect the community for the period Mr Turner remained in custody, that would be a very short-sighted approach to the problem. If that approach were taken, then the hope would be that, while in custody, he would receive the type of rehabilitative treatment he obviously needs and that that would continue upon his release. Sometimes, for all sorts of reasons, that is the only option realistically available.

68 But, in my view, this case is different. Serious though some of the alleged offending may be (especially when set against Mr Turner's criminal history), simply keeping him in prison for an extended period without bail does not offer the long-term recovery and rehabilitative prospects that a successful stint at Odyssey House does. Doubtless, it involves a risk, but, in my opinion, it is a risk worth taking in the name of recovery and rehabilitation of the individual and, in consequence, for the protection of the community in the longer run.

69 For these reasons alone, I am satisfied that Mr Turner has established compelling reasons justifying a grant of bail.

70 While it is unnecessary to my decision and while it is a difficult thing to estimate, I should add that I think there is a strong argument that a delay of nine months between arrest and the conclusion of a contested hearing (which was the unchallenged estimate given by Mr Barreiro) could well see Mr Turner spending more time in prison than would be warranted (at least as a non-parole period) if he were convicted of all of the charges laid by LSC Lill. Again, it is preferable that he be given the opportunity to engage in this rehabilitative chance at Odyssey (places at which are rare) in order to improve his chances of longer-term reform.

71 For essentially the same reasons, plus the following, I am also unpersuaded that there is an unacceptable risk that, if bailed, Mr Turner would offend whilst on bail or would fail to surrender himself into custody.

72 I accept that he has a poor history of compliance with court orders, whether by breaching CCOs or committing offences on bail. I also accept that the evidence demonstrates that he has had access to false identities and that he is at risk of receiving a term of imprisonment, which in turn may well motivate him to seek to avoid facing these charges. (That said, it is not as if he has shown any penchant for fleeing the jurisdiction; and I reckon he would be nabbed in a jiffy anyway.)

73 But the evidence before me, which I accept, is that Odyssey residents are screened for drugs thrice-weekly and are required to adhere to "the cardinal rules" which, of relevance in Mr Turner's case, include no drugs or alcohol and no theft. Odyssey has a strict policy of reporting to police when any resident chooses to leave the programme. I intend to make it a condition of bail that Mr Turner must complete, and comply with the conditions of, the residential programme to the satisfaction of Odyssey. Thus, if Mr Turner failed to complete the programme, or if he left before he completed it, he would be in breach of bail and, what is more, the informant would be advised of that failure or departure immediately. If those things occurred, there is a high risk that his bail would be revoked. Accordingly, Mr Turner would have a very strong incentive to comply with that condition, which in turn must reduce his risk of offending while on bail and any risk that he would fail to appear.

74 When those matters are weighed and the other conditions of bail that I propose to fix are considered, I am not satisfied that the risks identified are unacceptable.

75 As I indicated at the outset of these reasons, I am satisfied that, by releasing Mr Turner to Odyssey House with conditions instead of refusing him bail, there is, in the longer term, a better prospect of "maximising the safety of the community and persons affected by crime to the greatest extent possible".[9] While there is also a risk that this approach will fail, I am convinced that it is a risk worth taking in the name of community safety via Mr Turner's recovery and rehabilitation.

76 Accordingly, the application for bail is granted.

77 Mr Turner will be admitted to bail, as and from Wednesday 2 December 2020, upon his own undertaking and with the following conditions:

(a) Mr Turner is to reside at Odyssey House for at least four months from 10:00 a.m. on 2 December 2020 (i.e. to at least 2 April 2021) or for as long as Odyssey House considers it necessary that he remain in their residential rehabilitation programme.

(b) Following his release from Odyssey House, Mr Turner is to reside at an address considered suitable by Mr Turner and the informant (LSC Lill) and, failing agreement, to be determined by the Magistrates' Court.

(c) Mr Turner must complete, and comply with the conditions of, the residential rehabilitation programme at Odyssey House to the satisfaction of Odyssey House.

(d) Mr Turner is not to leave Odyssey House between 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. other than in an emergency.

(f) Mr Turner is to appear at the Magistrates' Court at Geelong on 15 December 2020 at 9:30 a.m. and thereafter as directed by that court.

[1] Mr Turner is also known as Justin Williams.

[2] See s 1B(1)(a) of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).

[3] On the face of it, this would seem to have been an unlawful sentence (see ss 11(2) and (3) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)).

[4] See ss 4AA(3) and 4C, and clause 1(a) of Schedule 2, of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).

[5] See ss 4D(1)(b) and (2) and 4E(1)(a)(ii) of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).

[6] See ss 4D(1)(b) and (2) and 4E(1)(a)(iv) of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).

[7] In so far as he was referring to his powers to enter and search the room, I took LSC Lill to mean the powers set out in s 459A of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

[8] Akoka v The Queen [2017] VSCA 214 at [109].

[9] See s 1B(1)(a) of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).