HARDY -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2025] WASC 251 (4 June 2025)

1. The alleged victim in relation to all of the charges is Mr Hardy's wife, Rafal Qays Sami (Ms Sami). It is alleged that all the offences occurred in a situation of a domestic/family relationship.
2. On 22 October 2024, and prior to being charged with each of these offences, Mr Hardy was served with a family violence restraining order (FVRO). The protected person is Ms Sami.
3. On 17 December 2024, Mr Hardy was charged with breaching the FVRO by attending at the protected person's house contrary to the terms of the FVRO on 9 December 2024. On 21 February 2025, Mr Hardy pleaded guilty to the breach of the FVRO charge and was fined $500.
4. On 7 January 2025, Mr Hardy was arrested and charged with the pending offences.
5. On 26 February 2025, Mr Hardy made an application for bail in the Magistrates Court which was refused. On the same day, Mr Hardy entered pleas of not guilty to all of the pending charges. Those charges were remanded to a trial allocated date on 6 May 2025 in the Perth Magistrates Court.

1. By application dated 9 April 2025, Mr Hardy applied for bail pursuant to s 14(2) of the the Bail Act, seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the court pursuant to s 14(1) to the Bail Act.
2. The WA Police oppose bail and submit that there is a real risk that if Mr Hardy is not kept in custody, he may:

(a) fail to appear in court in accordance with his bail undertaking;

(b) commit an offence;

(c) endanger the safety, welfare or property of a person;

(d) interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice; and/or

(e) prejudice the proper conduct of the trial.

1. The matter was first listed for hearing before me on 30 April 2025.
2. Mr Hardy appeared by video‑link at that hearing and was represented by counsel. An interpreter was also present in the courtroom who was able to interpret from English to Arabic and vice versa. At the commencement of the hearing, I ascertained through counsel that Mr Hardy did not require the entirety of the proceedings to be translated and would only require the assistance of the interpreter if he did not understand what was being said. I explained to Mr Hardy that if he did not understand, and he needed assistance, he should advise me of that immediately. Thirty minutes before the conclusion of the hearing on 30 April 2025, the interpreter advised the court that he had another appointment and needed to leave. Mr Hardy indicated to the court that he was content to continue the hearing in the interpreter's absence.
3. After hearing from counsel for Mr Hardy and the WA Police, I adjourned the hearing until 16 May 2025 to enable the provision of a home detention Bail Assessment Report under cl 3 of pt D of sch 1 of the Bail Act, and also to enable the trial allocation date listed for 6 May 2025 to take place.
4. Upon the resumption of the bail application on 16 May 2025, the court had before it the results of the trial allocation date, being that the charges have been listed for a two‑day trial on 10 - 11 September 2025, and the home detention assessment report. After hearing further from counsel, I concluded, for reasons I provided orally, that having considered all of the material before me:

(a) I was satisfied that there was a real risk that if not detained in custody Mr Hardy may:

(i) fail to appear in court in accordance with his bail undertaking;

(ii) commit an offence against Ms Sami;

(iii) endanger the safety, welfare, or property of any person, being Ms Sami and/or their children; and/or

(iv) interfere with a witness, being Ms Sami or otherwise obstruct the course of justice.

(b) I was satisfied that the risk of Mr Hardy failing to appear in court could be sufficiently removed with appropriate bail conditions;

(c) I was not satisfied that the remaining risks could be sufficiently removed with appropriate bail conditions short of a home detention condition with electronic monitoring (in combination with the other conditions proposed by WA Police);

(d) I was not satisfied that the address at which Mr Hardy proposed to live under a home detention condition would sufficiently remove the remaining risks because it was in too close proximity to Ms Sami's address, being only 3 km away; and

(e) I was of the view that the remaining risks may be able to be sufficiently removed with the combination of a home detention condition with electronic monitoring and the other conditions identified by WA Police at an alternative address.

1. After hearing from counsel, I granted Mr Hardy's request for an adjournment until 4 June 2025 to provide Mr Hardy with an opportunity to identify a further address to be subject to a home detention condition assessment report.
2. At the hearing on 4 June 2025, the court had before it an updated home detention condition assessment report, dated 30 May 2025. After hearing from counsel, I concluded that it was not appropriate in all the circumstances to grant Mr Hardy bail and I dismissed the application. I indicated that I would publish my reasons in due course. These are those reasons.

1. The application is supported by an affidavit of Ms Farid Popal, Mr Hardy's solicitor, sworn on 8 April 2025; the affidavit of Rojin Khoshnow, sworn 9 April 2025; and Mr Hardy also relies on his affidavit sworn 7 April 2025.
2. The State relies on the affidavit of Detective First Class Constable Hawthorne sworn 24 April 2025.
3. I also have before me a copy of a Bail Risk Assessment Report, prepared by the Family Violence Service, Court Counselling and Support Services of the Department of Justice dated 23 January 2025, and referred to in the transcript of the bail hearing before the magistrate.
4. I also have before me a copy of a Bail Assessment Report dated 8 May 2025 and the updated Bail Assessment Report dated 30 May 2025, prepared in response to my order that a home detention assessment report be prepared in response to the two further addresses provided by Mr Hardy.
5. Both parties filed written submissions and made oral submissions.

1. The statements of material facts for the pending charges reveal the following facts of the alleged offending. I will provide a summary of these facts.

8 September 2023 (charges PER 1658, 1659, 1660 and 1661 of 2025)

1. Mr Hardy is a 58‑year‑old male, 175 cm tall and of muscular build. Ms Sami is a 31‑year‑old female, 157 cm tall and of medium build.
2. Mr Hardy and Ms Sami have two sons together, aged 5 years and 1 year respectively.
3. On Friday 8 September 2023, at an unspecified time in the morning, Mr Hardy, Ms Sami and their children were at their residential home in Balga.
4. Ms Sami was in the living room sitting on the couch, breastfeeding their youngest son, who was less than 2 months old at the time. The older son was playing in the living room and had been unwell and had been vomiting.
5. Ms Sami's movements were restricted as she had recently given birth via caesarean delivery. When Mr Hardy woke up, he was upset and said the house smelt. He was further angered when he discovered that Ms Sami had not put the meat in the fridge that he told her to put away the day before. Ms Sami told Mr Hardy that she had forgotten to put the meat in the fridge as she was tired from caring for the children.
6. Mr Hardy then approached Ms Sami and spat at her face. Ms Sami responded by slamming her hand onto the coffee table.
7. Mr Hardy then used his left hand and grabbed Ms Sami by the throat for approximately 15 seconds. Ms Sami was unable to draw a breath in, thus was unable to breathe, impeding her breathing. Ms Sami was scared and thought Mr Hardy was going to kill her and attempted to defend herself by hitting Mr Hardy away.
8. While still holding onto Ms Sami's throat, Mr Hardy then used his other hand to punch and slap Ms Sami numerous times, causing her pain. Mr Hardy was shouting at Ms Sami while assaulting her.
9. Mr Hardy then let go of Ms Sami's throat. During the assault, Ms Sami was still holding onto her youngest son and breastfeeding him with her right breast.
10. Mr Hardy then squeezed Ms Sami's left breast with force and twisted her nipple over her bra. Ms Sami felt that Mr Hardy had made something pop inside her breast. Ms Sami yelled out in pain, causing the baby to cry and Mr Hardy to let go of her nipple.
11. As a result of the assault, Ms Sami had injuries to her right eye, which caused her eye to be red and swollen. Ms Sami was also bleeding from her upper lip, which resulted in her lip becoming swollen.
12. Ms Sami was also unable to produce milk from her left breast for 10 days. As a result, Ms Sami's breast became swollen and hard.
13. Ms Sami did not seek any medical attention or contact police as she was fearful of the accused.

25 August 2024 (charges PER 1662, 1663, 1664, 1665 and 1666 of 2025)

1. On Sunday 25 August 2024, at about 3.00 pm to 4.00 pm Mr Hardy and Ms Sami were at their residential home in Balga.
2. Ms Sami was recovering from a surgery to her knee. Ms Sami's knee was in a brace and she was unable to move easily. Ms Sami was seated on the bed, with her back up against the headboard, in the main bedroom.
3. Ms Sami was breastfeeding her youngest son. Mr Hardy and their oldest son were in the living room.
4. Ms Sami and Mr Hardy got into an argument. Ms Sami had realised that the hospital had given her the wrong report and provided her with someone else's recovery instructions. Ms Sami called out to Mr Hardy and asked him if he could go back to the hospital to get the right instructions.
5. Mr Hardy responded by saying no and that he would do it later.
6. Ms Sami kept asking Mr Hardy why he would not help her, and Mr Hardy said something to the effect that it was only knee surgery. Ms Sami responded and said, 'I hope to God you have this surgery'.
7. This angered Mr Hardy who came into the bedroom to confront Ms Sami and yelled, 'You ask God to make me sick!?'
8. Mr Hardy approached Ms Sami and spat at her face.
9. Ms Sami shouted at Mr Hardy and told him that he did not have respect for her. Mr Hardy called Ms Sami 'a bitch' and told her she was not a good woman and that he did not want her in his life. Mr Hardy then came closer and slapped Ms Sami across the left cheek of her face.
10. Mr Hardy then demanded Ms Sami apologise and kiss his hand. If she did not, Mr Hardy said he would kill her or throw her out onto the streets.
11. Ms Sami refused to apologise and this angered Mr Hardy.
12. Mr Hardy then immediately grabbed Ms Sami's throat with his left hand and squeezed her throat. When grabbing Ms Sami's throat, Mr Hardy pushed her onto her right side and continued to squeeze her throat, strangling her.
13. Ms Sami was unable to breathe and was scared Mr Hardy was going to kill her as he had just told her he did not want her in his life and she could not breathe.
14. While holding onto Ms Sami's throat, Mr Hardy then used his right hand to punch the left side of Ms Sami's forehead and the back of her head. Mr Hardy continued to punch Ms Sami several times to the left side of her face. Ms Sami was holding her baby throughout the assault.
15. Mr Hardy yelled at Ms Sami while assaulting her. Ms Sami tried to defend herself by scratching Mr Hardy with her nails, but Mr Hardy continued to be violent towards her, not stopping.
16. Ms Sami was scared that Mr Hardy would not stop hurting her. Ms Sami grabbed a clingwrap box next to her and hit Mr Hardy with it to get him to stop.
17. Mr Hardy punched Ms Sami hard to the upper left side of her back, causing Ms Sami to lose consciousness. Ms Sami was unsure of how long she had lost consciousness for. Ms Sami woke up to her older son saying, 'Rafal, mummy'.
18. By that point, Mr Hardy had left the room, and her younger son was seated next to her playing on the bed.
19. Ms Sami experienced a lot of pain and could not sleep on the left side of her face and had a headache the day after the assault. Ms Sami at the time was medicated on Tramadol, due to her knee surgery, but was still in a lot of pain. Ms Sami had bruising and swelling to her face and back.
20. Ms Sami took a brief video after the assault and sent it to her two friends and to her parents in Iraq. Some of the injuries were captured on video.
21. On the following day, Monday 26 August 2024, a friend attended Ms Sami's home. The friend observed bruises to Ms Sami's face and red marks on both sides of Ms Sami's neck. The friend asked Ms Sami about the red marks, who disclosed that Mr Hardy had choked her and assaulted her.
22. Ms Sami did not seek medical attention or seek help from police as she was scared Mr Hardy would take her children away from her.

21 October 2024 (charges PER 1667 and 1668 of 2025)

1. On Monday 21 October 2024, Mr Hardy and Ms Sami were at their residential premises in Balga.
2. Mr Hardy and Ms Sami got into an argument. Mr Hardy got angry at Ms Sami and threatened her. Mr Hardy told Ms Sami that he was going to kill her. Ms Sami was scared of Mr Hardy.
3. Mr Hardy then grabbed Ms Sami by her jumper and pushed her out of the house, without her children.
4. Ms Sami called her friend and asked her to call police. The police later attended and issued Mr Hardy with a Police Order.

1. The final charge is that of persistently engaging in family violence. The statement of material facts for this charge is lengthy.
2. However, in essence it alleges that Mr Hardy and Ms Sami were married in Iraq in January 2019. Ms Sami was 25 years of age when she met Mr Hardy.
3. Mr Hardy and Ms Sami left Iraq in July 2021 to reside in Australia permanently.
4. The statement of facts alleges that throughout the relationship Mr Hardy was physically, emotionally, financially and sexually abusive to Ms Sami. Towards the end of the relationship the physical abuse escalated and was often observed by the children.
5. Mr Hardy persistently engaged in family violence against Ms Sami. The violence perpetrated by Mr Hardy against Ms Sami included verbal abuse, pushing, punching, impeding Ms Sami's breathing and threatening to kill her and take their children away from her.
6. Ms Sami documented some of her injuries, by either sending images or videos to her family or friends. Ms Sami was scared that Mr Hardy would go through her phone and so she deleted numerous photographs and videos.
7. During the relationship, Ms Sami was unable to seek any medical attention for her injuries as Mr Hardy would not allow her to. Mr Hardy often threatened Ms Sami that he would send her back to Iraq and take her children away if she was not an obedient wife. Furthermore, in an attempt to control and manipulate her, Mr Hardy told Ms Sami that the Australian Government would not help her as Mr Hardy had legal authority of her and the children.
8. This resulted in Ms Sami being fearful of seeking help from police.
9. On 21 October 2024, Ms Sami left the relationship and on 22 October 2024, Ms Sami filed for a Family Violence Restraining Order which was served on Mr Hardy on 22 October 2024.
10. The statement of material facts provides examples of alleged offending behaviour by Mr Hardy against Ms Sami during the period 2022 and 2024. These include the alleged offences on 8 September 2023, 25 August 2024 and 21 October 2024.
11. They include the following further three alleged offences.
12. First, on Wednesday 16 November 2022, Mr Hardy and Ms Sami were at their family home in Balga. At the time of the incident their oldest son was 3 years of age.
13. On this day Ms Sami had been informed that she had been granted permanent residency in Australia. Mr Hardy started an argument with Ms Sami as he was upset that she had become independent within the year, and her English had improved quickly.
14. Mr Hardy was also upset that Ms Sami was pregnant and did not want her to be pregnant with a female. Mr Hardy wanted Ms Sami to have an abortion and she refused. Mr Hardy then grabbed Ms Sami by the shirt, around her shoulders and pushed her out of the house.
15. Ms Sami alerted her father in Iraq, who convinced Mr Hardy to let her back into the house, on the condition that she apologise and kissed Mr Hardy's hand. Ms Sami did not report the incident to police at the time.
16. Secondly, on Wednesday 21 August 2024, Mr Hardy and Ms Sami were at their family home in Balga.
17. Mr Hardy and Ms Sami got into a verbal argument, while in their kitchen. Ms Sami was attempting to teach Mr Hardy how to prepare food for their older son as she was due to have surgery on her knee, thus would be unable to move and prepare food for the family. Mr Hardy did not want to learn how to prepare their son's food. Mr Hardy grabbed a box of tissues and threw it at Ms Sami's face and pushed her shoulders.
18. Mr Hardy used a closed fist to punch Ms Sami in the back and then punched Ms Sami to the left side of her face, causing her pain. Mr Hardy was yelling and telling Ms Sami that he did not want her and if their son did not, he will just die. This caused Ms Sami to be upset.
19. Ms Sami did not photograph her injuries as she was concerned that Mr Hardy would go through her phone. Ms Sami did not seek medical attention or seek assistance from police. Ms Sami was concerned that Mr Hardy would kick her out of the house and apologised to Mr Hardy by kissing his hands and feet.
20. Thirdly, at 10.12 pm on 22 October 2024, Mr Hardy was served a Violence Restraining Order. The FVRO is for a duration of two years starting on 22 October 2024 and will expire on 21 October 2026.

Part of the order states PART A: ORDERS. EXCEPT AS SET OUT IN PART B YOU MUST NOT:

- enter or remain upon [address redacted] Balga or any other premises where the Person Protected lives or works or is educated or be within 50 metres of the nearest external boundary of those premises.

1. On Monday 9 December 2024 at approximately 10.38 pm, Mr Hardy drove a white SUV into the common driveway adjacent to the Balga address. Mr Hardy exited the vehicle and walked into the carport towards the front door. Mr Hardy knelt by the front door for a short period before getting up and making his way into the carport again where various construction items are stored. Mr Hardy selected some of those items and began walking back to the common driveway where his vehicle was parked. Mr Hardy and his actions were captured on CCTV.

1. In exercising its jurisdiction under s 14(1) of the Bail Act, the court may exercise afresh the jurisdiction to grant bail conferred on a magistrate by s 13 and sch 1 pt 3A to the Bail Act. This is not an appeal from the decision of the magistrate to refuse bail.
2. Pursuant to s 13(1) of the Bail Act, jurisdiction to grant bail must be exercised subject to and in accordance with pt III and the further provisions in pts B, C and D of sch 1 to the Bail Act.
3. The principles relevant to the exercise of the jurisdiction to grant bail are set out in Milenkovski v The State of Western Australia[1] and YSN v The State of Western Australia.[2] I have applied these principles in this case. I have not set out these principles in these reasons, but I observe that the grant or refusal of bail involves the exercise of a discretion. That exercise involves two stages. The first stage involves asking and answering the mandatory questions in pars (a) - (g) of cl 1 of pt C of sch 1 to the Bail Act. The second stage involves the exercise of the discretion by reference to the answers given to those questions and any other questions which the court considers relevant.
4. The questions in cl 1 that are relevant for the purposes of this application are:

(1) whether Mr Hardy may fail to appear in court as required by his bail undertaking;

(2) whether Mr Hardy may commit an offence if not kept in custody;

(3) whether Mr Hardy may endanger the safety or welfare of any person; and

(4) whether the prosecutor has put forward grounds for opposing the grant of bail.

1. If there is a real risk of any of items (1) - (4) occurring, I must consider, under cl 1(e)(i), whether there are conditions that could reasonably be imposed under pt D which would 'sufficiently remove the possibility' of the applicant doing those things. In relation to item (4), I must consider, under cl 1(e)(iii), whether there are conditions which could reasonably be imposed under pt D that would remove the grounds for opposition.
2. In answering those questions, the matters I must take into account under cl 3 include:

(1) the nature and seriousness of the offence and the probable method of dealing with Mr Hardy if he is convicted;

(2) the strength of the evidence against Mr Hardy;

(3) in relation to the pending offence and each offence of which Mr Hardy has previously been convicted - the conduct of Mr Hardy, after the time or alleged time of the offence, towards any person against whom it was, or was alleged to have been, committed and any family member of such a person;

(4) the character, previous convictions, antecedents, associations, home environment, background, place of residence, and financial position of Mr Hardy;

(5) the history of any previous grants of bail; and

(6) any other matter considered relevant.

1. This is not a case where cl 3F of pt C, sch 1 to the Bail Act applies.
2. The court may impose conditions on the grant of bail.[3] One such condition is a home detention condition, which may be imposed as a condition on a grant of bail to an accused who is over the age of 17 years if satisfied:[4]

(a) after considering a report from a CCO about the accused and his circumstances, that the accused is suitable to be subject to a home detention condition; and

(b) that the place where it is proposed the accused will remain while subject to the home detention condition is a suitable place; and

(c) that unless a home detention condition is imposed the accused will not be released on bail.

1. In Camilleri v The State of Western Australia, Fiannaca J described the process for considering and making a home detention condition as follows:[5]

... while a judicial officer must consider a report from a CCO about the accused and his circumstances to determine if the judicial officer is satisfied that the accused is suitable to be subject to a home detention condition, and that the place where it is proposed the accused will remain while subject to the home detention condition is a suitable place, that determination may depend also on other evidence and factors. The court will give due weight to an opinion expressed by a CCO about the suitability of an accused and his proposed residence for a home detention condition. However, it is for the court to be satisfied about those matters, having regard to all of the materials in the application and all the considerations in sch 1 pt C of the Act. At the stage that the court is considering a home detention condition, it will have reached the conclusion that unless such a condition is imposed, the accused will not be released on bail. In other words, there is no other combination of conditions that, without home detention, would sufficiently remove any risk identified under cl 1(a) of sch 1 pt C. The question remains, ultimately, whether a home detention condition, alone or in combination with other conditions, would sufficiently remove such a risk, such that the remaining risk no longer constitutes a proper ground for refusing bail.

1. The Bail Act goes on to set out the conditions to which an accused is subject if released on bail with a home detention condition. It is not necessary to set those out in detail. It is sufficient to note that, in effect, a person subject to such a condition is required to remain at his specified residence until the time when he is required, by his bail undertaking, to attend court, with a number of exceptions including relating to working or obtaining work or as approved by a CCO.
2. In light of the charges Mr Hardy is facing, if he is released on bail and a home detention condition is imposed, then the judicial officer must direct that Mr Hardy be subject to electronic monitoring whilst subject to the home detention condition.[6] If a home detention condition is not imposed, then the judicial officer must impose an electronic monitoring condition as a condition of the grant of bail.[7]

Matters under cl 3 of pt C

1. Before dealing with the relevant questions in cl 1(a) of pt C, sch 1 to the Bail Act, I will first consider each of the matters I must take into account under cl 3 of pt C, sch 1.

The nature and seriousness of the offence and probable outcome

1. Mr Hardy has been charged with a total of 12 offences including counts of aggravated common assault, impeding another person's normal breathing and aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm.
2. The maximum penalties for these offences are:

(1) Four charges of aggravated common assault: 3 years imprisonment and fine of $36,000 for each offence.

(2) Two counts of impeding another person's normal breathing: 7 years imprisonment, with a summary conviction penalty of 3 years imprisonment and fine of $36,000 for each offence.

(3) Three counts of aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm: 7 years imprisonment, with a summary conviction penalty of 3 years imprisonment and fine of $36,000 for each offence.

(4) Two counts of aggravated threats to unlawfully do an act: 5 years imprisonment, with a summary conviction of imprisonment for 18 months and a fine of $18,000.

(5) One count of persistently engaging in family violence: 14 years imprisonment, with a summary conviction penalty of 3 years imprisonment and fine of $36,000.

1. The offences of aggravated common assault are simple offences, with the remaining alleged offences being either way offences. It is proposed that the matters be heard in the Magistrates Court. Nonetheless, all alleged offences are serious. I have outlined the facts already. If proven, the charges reveal repeated instances of domestic violent offending towards Ms Sami. Further, if proven, the charges are aggravated by the offending occurring in the context of a domestic/family relationship, at the family home and in the presence of the couple's young children.
2. It is accepted by counsel for Mr Hardy that if he were to be convicted of all the pending charges, a term of immediate imprisonment will likely follow. Counsel submits however, that if Mr Hardy is only convicted of some offences, the length of the term of imprisonment will be shorter, and this may have an impact when considering the question of delay (which I will return to).

1. The affidavit evidence relied on by the WA Police reveals that the prosecution case consists of the evidence of Ms Sami; contemporary WhatsApp messages revealing details of the offending behaviour; a video recording of Ms Sami shortly after an alleged offence; and a witness statement supplied by a friend of Ms Sami which provides some contemporaneous evidence in support of Ms Sami's account or which provides evidence of Ms Sami providing a contemporaneous account of some of the alleged offending behaviour to her friend; and the WA Police incident reports which includes a record of Ms Sami's account of the events the subject of the October 2024 charges, on the day of the alleged offending.
2. In reviewing this evidence I am, of course, not forming a view as to whether Mr Hardy will be convicted of the charges. I am simply forming an assessment, on the basis of the documents before me, as to the strength of the prosecution case. In so doing, I take the prosecution case at its highest.
3. The prosecution case is heavily dependent upon Ms Sami's account of what occurred. That is not necessarily unusual in cases alleging offending of the type alleged here. Ms Sami has not given evidence or been cross‑examined as to her account. Counsel for Mr Hardy also made submissions that not all of the material put before the court for the purposes of this bail application would be admissible in the future trial of the charges.
4. It is not my role at this stage to determine issues of admissibility or credibility. I am satisfied on the basis of the information before me that the prosecution case is not a weak case and that there appears to be evidence, in the form of Ms Sami's very detailed statement combined with at least some of the other material relied on by WA Police, to support the charges that is capable of being accepted by a magistrate (or a jury).

1. The material before me is directed towards Mr Hardy's conduct on the date of each of the alleged offences. However, some of those offences occurred subsequent to earlier instances of alleged offending.
2. Further, charge PE 1669/2025 concerns an alleged sustained course of violent and coercive conduct by Mr Hardy towards Ms Sami over a period of time.
3. Finally, Mr Hardy has been convicted for a breach of the FVRO, which was imposed and breached after the date of each of the alleged offences, but prior to the charges being laid.

Mr Hardy's personal circumstances and history of bail

1. In his affidavit in support of his application for bail, Mr Hardy deposes that he is 58 years old and was born in Iraq. Mr Hardy moved to Perth when he was about 27 years old and has lived in Western Australia since 1994.
2. Mr Hardy is the second eldest of five children - two sisters and a brother live in Iraq. Mr Hardy's cousins also live in Brisbane, and they often visit him in Perth.
3. Mr Hardy deposes that he has two adult children - a son who is 25 years and a daughter who is 21 years. Mr Hardy deposes that his son currently lives in Melbourne, but often visits him in Perth and deposes that his daughter also visits him.
4. Mr Hardy deposes that he is close with his two young children with Ms Sami. Mr Hardy deposes that he has a good relationship with his children and enjoys spending time with them.
5. Mr Hardy has an electrical engineering qualification from Mosul University in Iraq (equivalent to a bachelor's degree) and attended TAFE after he arrived in WA.
6. Mr Hardy deposes that between 1994 and 2008, he worked as an electrical technician in Western Australia. Further, that from around 2008 to 2021 he ran 'E Sense Café' in Adelaide Terrace, Perth. Since 2021, he has worked in the building industry.
7. Mr Hardy deposes that he does not hold any other passports of citizenships other than his Australian passport, which he deposes is currently held by Ms Sami. Mr Hardy deposes that he visited Iraq in 2024 with his wife to visit her parents.
8. I have before me a copy of Mr Hardy's criminal record. Mr Hardy has only one conviction, being the conviction for breaching the FVRO order in December 2024. This offending post‑dates the offending alleged in the pending charges.
9. Mr Hardy deposes that the reason for his breach of the FVRO was that he attended the Balga property because he needed his construction tools as he was going into work the next day. Mr Hardy deposes that he did not enter the house, see or speak to Ms Sami.
10. In terms of a history of bail, Mr Hardy was granted bail by the Magistrates Court on 18 December 2024 in relation to the breach of FVRO charge. He remained on bail until he was arrested approximately two weeks later on 7 January 2025 in relation to the pending charges. It is not alleged that Mr Hardy breached bail during this two‑week period.
11. In terms of time in custody, Mr Hardy has remained in custody since his arrest on 7 January 2025 - meaning he has been in custody for approximately three and a half months. Mr Hardy deposes that this is the first time he has been in prison, and he has found it extremely difficult. Mr Hardy deposes that his physical and mental health has deteriorated, and he feels anxious and has suffered panic attacks and nightmares, constant headaches, pain in his left knee and swelling in his fingers.
12. Counsel for Mr Hardy also submitted that Mr Hardy has not, to date, been subject to the more stringent bail conditions that would be applicable if a home detention condition was imposed, or the various conditions identified by the WA Police are imposed.

1. In his affidavit, Mr Hardy deposed that if granted bail, two identified individuals have agreed to accommodate him at their house in Yokine. However, when I subsequently ordered a Home Detention Report, those individuals withdrew their agreement for Mr Hardy to live at their house in Yokine. Mr Hardy then nominated a different address where he would reside, and it was this address that was assessed for the purposes of the home detention report (which is discussed later in these reasons).
2. Mr Hardy also relies on the affidavit of Rojin Khoshnow as someone who is prepared to provide a surety of $50,000 and put his property in Queensland as security for Mr Hardy's compliance with his bail conditions if bail is granted. Mr Khoshnow deposes that he has known Mr Hardy since 2005, and that in 2021 Mr Hardy, Ms Sami and their adult children lived with Mr Khoshnow and his family for approximately three months.
3. Legal Aid Bail Support Service has conducted a Teams meeting with Mr Hardy and developed a bail plan to assist him if granted bail. By way of summary, that plan includes providing an assigned bail support worker; liaising with Mr Hardy's lawyer; assisting Mr Hardy to navigate complex bail conditions; providing regular text message and phone call reminders for updates of future court hearing dates; support Mr Hardy engaging with Centrelink for financial and employment opportunities if self‑employment is not available; referrals to GP to create a mental health plan; engagement with Relationships Australia to explore interpersonal relationship counselling; confirm accommodation in Yokine; and recommence engagement with local Kurdish community.

1. The WA Police also rely on the fact that when Mr Hardy was arrested on 7 January 2025, he told WA Police that he wanted to take his sons and return to the Kurdistan region as he hates Australia. The details of that disclosure are contained in a Police Incident Report included in the affidavit material before me.
2. Counsel for Mr Hardy submits that there is no context or detail regarding that statement, and it is not clear if that statement was made through an interpreter or not.
3. WA Police also rely on Ms Sami reporting to WA Police on 17 December 2024 that Mr Hardy had contacted her father in Iraq and threatened to kill her if the FVRO is not taken off him as he has nothing left to lose. The details of that contact are contained in a Police Incident Report included in the affidavit material before me. A reference to Mr Hardy contacting Ms Sami's father on undisclosed dates is also referred to in Ms Sami's statement.

1. The WA Police also rely on material regarding Mr Hardy's history with his first wife, the mother of his two older children. The information relied upon is as follows:

(1) On 27 September 2002, violence restraining orders were issued by the Perth Court of Petty Sessions - the protected persons were Mr Hardy's ex‑wife and two of their children (two daughters). The orders expired after two years.

(2) On 15 April 2017, Mr Hardy's ex‑wife called WA Police for advice about obtaining a VRO following a heated verbal argument with Mr Hardy the night before. Mr Hardy's ex‑wife reported to WA Police that the argument occurred after she had separated from Mr Hardy in 2005 after he took two of her children to Iraq without her permission and that Mr Hardy had made insinuations/remarks that Mr Hardy could get people to come to the address and cause her or her children harm. The details of that disclosure are contained in a Police Incident Report included in the affidavit material before me.

(3) On 17 April 2017, Mr Hardy's ex‑wife called WA Police to report that Mr Hardy had attacked her brother, who was attempting to protect her from Mr Hardy, who had been shouting and verbally abusing her. Mr Hardy was issued with a 72‑hour Police Order. The details of that disclosure are contained in a Police Incident Report included in the affidavit material before me as is the Police Order.

(4) On 20 April 2017, Mr Hardy was served with an interim VRO by the Perth Magistrates court protecting his ex‑wife. A final order was made on 28 September 2017. A copy of that order is in the affidavit material before me.

(5) On 1 May 2017, Mr Hardy's ex‑wife reported to WA Police that Mr Hardy had attended her address in an apparent breach of the VRO. Mr Hardy's ex‑wife reported that Mr Hardy claimed that it was his right to hit his wife two to three times a year under Islam and that he told their daughter that he intends to seek revenge under Islam when his ex‑wife's sister returns to Sweden. The details of that disclosure are contained in a Police Incident Report included in the affidavit material before me.

(6) On 24 July 2017, Mr Hardy's ex‑wife reported to WA Police that Mr Hardy sent a threatening voice message to her friend. The details of that disclosure are contained in a Police Incident Report included in the affidavit material before me.

1. Through his counsel, Mr Hardy disputes the facts as alleged in the police incident reports.
2. Counsel for Mr Hardy submits that no weight ought be given to the above evidence based on the police incident reports. In this regard, counsel submits that Mr Hardy was not charged in relation to any alleged conduct concerning his ex‑wife, including any alleged breaches of the VRO and the police incident reports record that at the time WA Police concluded there was insufficient evidence to support charges. Counsel submits that reliance on the information ignores the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
3. Counsel for the WA Police submits that some weight can be given to the reports, given the similar nature of some of the allegations, and the fact that the allegations involve a second person.
4. Pursuant to s 22 of the Bail Act, a judicial officer considering an application for bail may receive and take into account such information as they think fit, whether or not the same would normally be admissible. Therefore, I am able to take into account the information contained in the police incident reports regarding Mr Hardy's ex‑wife.
5. In terms of the weight that I give that information, I note that I do not have before me a statement or affidavit from Mr Hardy's ex‑wife. Mr Hardy disputes the facts alleged in the police incident reports and Mr Hardy was not charged or convicted of any offences concerning his ex‑wife. I have taken these factors into account when considering the weight to be given to this information.
6. However, I consider the material taken as a whole does reveal the following matters which I take into account when considering the bail application:

(a) that on two earlier occasions, judicial officers of the Magistrates Court considered the criteria for making a violence restraining order against Mr Hardy had been met. That is, that Mr Hardy had committed personal violence against the protected person and was likely to do so again, or there were reasonable grounds to apprehend that Mr Hardy will commit personal violence against the protected person. Further, these violence restraining orders were made to protect a different person than Ms Sami; and

(b) the allegations (and they are only allegations) contained in the police incident reports regarding Mr Hardy's ex‑wife contain some similarities to the allegations made by or concerning Ms Sami, including threats directly to the protected person; threats to the protected person via friends or family members; and threats or incidents of taking the children to Iraq without permission.

1. I have also had regard to the contents of the Bail Risk Assessment Report.
2. The Bail Risk Assessment Report was prepared by the Family Violence Service for consideration of protective bail conditions, in consultation with the WA Police Family Violence Team and Department of Communities, Child Protection and Family Support (CPFS). I will not provide a complete summary of the report in these reasons, but note the following key conclusions:

(1) Department of Communities, Child Protection and Family Support conducted a Child Safety Investigation which was finalised on 3 December 2024. It concluded substantiation of the likelihood that the children experienced significant harm as a result of Mr Hardy's violence. Based on the information ascertained in the investigation process, Mr Hardy was assessed as posing a continuing risk to the safety of Ms Sami and the children. Further, the investigation found Ms Sami displays immense parenting capacity, sound insight around risk and a firm determination to create safety for herself and the children. The Department is concerned that Mr Hardy's past violence may escalate with increased risk of honour/retribution violence in response to Ms Sami's act of reporting his behaviour to authorities and her attempts to hold him accountable.

(2) The Family Violence Service conducted a risk assessment based on the Common Risk Assessment and Risk Management Framework, considering Ms Sami's assessment of the risks, evidence‑based key risk factors and the author's professional judgment. The conclusion was that Ms Sami was assessed as being at high risk of serious harm due to the presence of various listed indicators of risk.

(3) Ms Sami has rated her level of fear as 'terrified'.

(4) Ms Sami reports that she is now experiencing pressure from the community in Perth and in Iraq to revoke the FVRO and have the current charges discontinued. Through phone calls and messages, she has been told by reporting Mr Hardy to the authorities, Ms Sami is bringing shame/dishonour upon her family, putting her at risk of social ostracisation, or punishment from her husband. Ms Sami has no family and few supports in the community, putting her at high risk of witness interference and social pressure.

(5) In view of the assessment conducted, the Family Violence Service stated that it cannot recommend any protective bail or bail conditions that would ensure the safety of Ms Sami and her children.

1. Following the hearing on 30 April 2025, I ordered the preparation of a home detention assessment report for the address Mr Hardy proposed to reside at if released on bail. Following the hearing on 16 May 2025, I ordered the preparation of a further home detention assessment report at an address to be provided by Mr Hardy.
2. The updated Home Detention Report was prepared by officers at Corrective Services, Adult Community Corrections, and is dated 30 May 2025. The material upon which it is based includes an interview with the occupier of the premises, Mr Grant Fisher, on 28 May 2025. I have summarised the content of that report below.
3. Mr Hardy proposes to reside at an address in Pearsall. It is located 14 km, approximately a 15‑minute drive, away from Ms Sami's address.
4. The address is a three‑bedroom unit rented by Mr Grant Fisher. Mr Fisher has been associated with Mr Hardy for approximately two years, meeting through mutual friends in the construction industry. Mr Fisher, in turn, rents the unit from an associate of his.
5. Mr Fisher usually resides at the unit alone, but for the past three weeks has had a female associate temporarily residing with him whilst she gets back on her feet. Mr Fisher is unsure how long she will stay. Both Mr Fisher and his female associate are employed. Mr Fisher has his own business as a motor mechanic.
6. Mr Fisher noted an understanding of the home detention bail conditions and the nature of the charges Mr Hardy is facing. The report notes that Mr Fisher advised the author that he had appeared before the court himself in the past for traffic and other minor offences. The report states there is a historical offending dating back to 2016.
7. The report states that testing of the monitoring equipment identified no issues that would impede the signal of the electronic monitoring equipment and is therefore deemed capable of facilitating electronic monitoring. However, the report notes that there continue to be concerns about Mr Hardy's proposed address in the context of Mr Hardy having previously breached the FVRO.
8. Should the court grant Mr Hardy Home Detention Bail with electronic monitoring, the following conditions are recommended:

(a) To be subject to Home Detention with Electronic Monitoring and to reside at [Proposed Address].

(b) To be subject to Home Detention Bail with Electronic Monitoring.

(c) Not to be released from custody until confirmation is received from Adult Community Corrections that electronic monitoring equipment is available and can be installed.

(d) Comply with all lawful directions of a Community Corrections Officer.

(e) Comply with any Protective Bail conditions and FVRO pertaining to the victim.

(f) To comply with any exclusion zones imposed by Adult Community Corrections.

1. At the hearing on 4 June 2025, the police tendered Mr Fisher's criminal record and a bundle of police incident reports and documents regarding Mr Fisher. By way of summary, that record indicates that Mr Fisher has an adult record of offending between 2005 and 2016. The offences include unlawful damage; three breaches of a violence restraining order; trespass; five offences of possessing a controlled weapon; one offence of assault occasioning bodily harm; a number of drug possession offences; and a variety of traffic related offences, including driving without authority. In 2016, Mr Fisher received a sentence of 7 months imprisonment and a further 2 months concurrent for driving when his licence had been cancelled.
2. The police material also reveals that on 20 May 2025, Mr Fisher was served with an interim family violence restraining order. It does not appear that a final hearing has taken place. The police incident reports reveal that Mr Fisher may be in the process of separating from his former partner, with whom he has two children. The incident reports also refer to an alleged incident in which Mr Fisher attended his ex‑partner's property in May 2025 (prior to the serving of the interim FVRO) and removed the fuse boxes.

Risk factors under cl 1(a) of pt C

1. I now turn to consider the questions in cl 1(a), which I have answered having considered the matters identified in cl 3.
2. Those that are relevant for the purposes of this application are whether Mr Hardy:

(1) may fail to appear in court as required by his bail undertaking (cl 1(a)(i));

(2) may commit an offence if not kept in custody (cl 1(a)(ii));

(3) may endanger the safety, welfare, or property of any person (cl 1(a)(iii)); and

(4) may interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice (cl 1(a)(iv)).

1. Clause 1(a) is not concerned with a risk or possibility that is merely theoretical or hypothetical and would consequently apply to anyone and everyone charged with the offence with which Mr Hardy is charged. Rather, the risk or possibility must be actual or real, as distinct from theoretical and hypothetical.[8]

1. I have considered whether there is a risk that Mr Hardy may fail to appear in court as required if he is granted bail. I am satisfied that there is a risk that this may occur. Mr Hardy has family in both Australia and Iraq. Whilst Mr Hardy deposes that he has strong ties with his children, other material before me at least raises a question as to the strength of these ties. The material before me also states that Mr Hardy told WA Police that he wanted to take his sons to Kurdistan.

May commit an offence or may endanger the safety or welfare of any person

1. I have also considered whether there is a risk that Mr Hardy may commit an offence if not kept in custody and/or that he may endanger the safety or welfare of any person.
2. WA Police submit that there is a real risk that if released on bail Mr Hardy may contact Ms Sami to harm her or commit further violent offending demonstrated by:

(1) the persistent and violent nature of the charges;

(2) Mr Hardy has been convicted of breaching a family violence restraining order protecting Ms Sami;

(3) Mr Hardy is alleged to have threatened to kill Ms Sami through Ms Sami's father, if she did not revoke the FVRO; and

(4) Mr Hardy is alleged to have previously attended his ex‑wife's address and sent a threatening voice message to her friend in 2017 while a violence restraining order was in force.

1. WA Police also submit that the material before the court demonstrates that there is a real risk that if released, Mr Hardy may harm the children, through being exposed to harm to Ms Sami. Counsel for the WA Police relied on the Bail Risk Assessment Report in this regard, and the statements of material facts for the alleged offences which allege that some of the offending behaviour towards Ms Sami occurred in the presence of the children and that on occasion Mr Hardy harmed the children, albeit inadvertently.
2. Mr Hardy's counsel submits that:

(a) Mr Hardy has not been charged or convicted of any other offences, save for the breach of the FVRO in December 2024;

(b) Mr Hardy has not been charged or convicted of offending against any other individual so cannot be said to pose an unacceptable risk to the public at large;

(c) notwithstanding the breach of the FVRO, there is nothing to suggest that Mr Hardy will not abide by bail conditions; and

(d) Mr Hardy's breach of the FVRO did not relate to personal contact or interference with Ms Sami - it concerned the return of property. It is also not alleged that Mr Hardy has approached or contacted Ms Sami herself since the imposition of the FVRO.

1. On the material before me, I agree with the submissions made by WA Police that there is a real risk that Mr Hardy may commit an offence if not kept in custody and that he may endanger the safety or welfare of any person, those persons being Ms Sami and also her children.
2. Of particular significance in the present case is the nature of the alleged offending that Mr Hardy is charged with, and the pervasive and ongoing nature of the behaviour; the alleged threats made via Ms Sami's father; and the police incident reports concerning Mr Hardy's ex‑wife. I also consider the nature and strength of the prosecution case, and the central role played by Ms Sami in that regard, increases the risk of Mr Hardy committing an offence or endangering the safety or welfare of Ms Sami.
3. Also significant to my conclusion is Mr Hardy's conviction for the offence of failing to comply with the terms of the FVRO. Whilst the offending in that case did not involve any contact with Ms Sami or their children, or any violent behaviour, it is nonetheless a situation where Mr Hardy has failed to comply with the terms of an order and has gone on to commit an offence associated with Ms Sami and her protection.
4. I am also satisfied that on the basis of the material before me, in particular Ms Sami's statement and the Bail Risk Assessment Report, that if not remanded in custody there is a real risk that Mr Hardy may endanger the safety or welfare of his children, albeit incidentally. In this regard, I observe that the material before me suggests that the offending behaviour against Ms Sami often occurred in the presence of one or more of their children. On occasion, Mr Hardy also endangered the safety of his children with his actions towards Ms Sami, even if it was not intentional. The Bail Risk Assessment Report also outlines the harm to the children from witnessing Mr Hardy's behaviour towards Ms Sami. Mr Hardy's alleged statement to WA Police officers that he wished to take his sons to Iraq as he did not like Australia, is also suggestive of a risk of harm to the welfare of his sons, to the extent what is being proposed is to remove them from Ms Sami and their home.

May interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice

1. WA Police also submit that if not kept in custody there is a real risk that Mr Hardy may take actions to pressure Ms Sami into withdrawing her support for the prosecution, thereby obstructing the course of justice and prejudicing the proper conduct of the trial.
2. I accept that on the material before me such a risk exists. Of particular significance in the present case is the strength and nature of the prosecution case, and the central role played by Ms Sami in that case. Also relevant is Ms Sami's fear of Mr Hardy. This is expressed not only in Ms Sami's statement, but also in the Bail Risk Assessment Report. There is nothing before me to suggest that this fear is not genuine. Also of significance are the alleged threats made by Mr Hardy to Ms Sami's father; Mr Hardy's alleged statement to WA Police officers regarding taking his children to Iraq; and the police incident reports concerning Mr Hardy's conduct towards ex‑wife. Ms Sami and her children are also relatively isolated in Perth, with only limited community supports and no family supports.
3. I accept that even if Mr Hardy is not granted bail, this would not necessarily prevent Mr Hardy from attempting to dissuade Ms Sami from giving evidence, for example by contacting Ms Sami or others. However, I consider that it is more difficult to do so from prison, and the extent that any such conduct may produce fear in Ms Sami of a sufficient significance to withdraw her cooperation for the prosecution is reduced.

1. There is nothing before me which provides a basis for concluding that the questions in cl 1(b), cl 1(d) and cl 1(f) are applicable here.
2. Clause 1(g) requires consideration as to whether the alleged circumstances of the offence amount to wrongdoing of such a serious nature as to make a grant of bail inappropriate. Having considered the statements of material facts, I accept that there is nothing in the evidence before me which indicates that the circumstances of the offending amounts to wrongdoing of such a serious nature to make the grant of bail inappropriate.
3. In terms of cl 1(c), I have addressed the State's grounds for opposing the grant of bail when considering the other matters I am required to have regard to.
4. I am also required by cl 1 to have regard not only to the questions specified in cl 1, but also to any other matters that I consider to be relevant. One such factor is the amount of time that Mr Hardy will spend in custody if he is not granted bail prior to being finally dealt with for these charges and in comparison to the possible length of sentence that Mr Hardy may expect if convicted. Counsel for Mr Hardy originally submitted that Mr Hardy was facing a delay well into 2026 for a trial date. However, after the trial was listed for trial on 10 and 11 September 2025, counsel appropriately adapted the submission. Counsel submitted that Mr Hardy has been in custody since 7 January 2025 and it was not clear whether the trial would be concluded on those dates and/or a decision delivered at the conclusion of those dates. Counsel for Mr Hardy submitted that if bail was not granted there was a risk Mr Hardy will face a significant injustice by spending a period of time in custody as an unconvicted person.
5. I do not consider that the time Mr Hardy has presently spent in custody, or would be in custody until September 2025, to be a sufficiently lengthy period of time to constitute a factor in favour of granting bail.

Clause 1(e) - consideration of any conditions that may alleviate risk

1. In light of my conclusion that I consider there to be a real risk that if not kept in custody Mr Hardy may not appear at trial; may commit an offence; may endanger the safety or welfare of any person; or may take actions to pressure Ms Sami into withdrawing her support for the prosecution, thereby obstructing the course of justice and prejudicing the proper conduct of the trial, it is necessary to consider whether there are any conditions which could be imposed which would sufficiently remove the possibility of those risks.
2. As a starting point, the WA Police accept, appropriately in my view, that the risk that Mr Hardy may not appear at trial is a risk that can be adequately reduced by the imposition of appropriate bail conditions (eg. concerning the surrender of passports and not approaching exit points). I accept that this risk can be adequately managed in this manner.
3. Turning to the remaining risks, prior to the hearing on 30 April 2025 both parties provided a list of proposed bail conditions in the event that bail was granted.
4. The conditions identified by WA Police included conditions addressing matters such as a personal undertaking and a surety; surrender of passport and not to leave the State or approach within 500 m of any international point of departure; home detention condition with electronic monitoring; and protective bail conditions regarding no contact with Ms Sami. Further, the proposed conditions include conditions regarding electronic devices, including conditions which require Mr Hardy to provide to any police officer details of any computer, telephone or electronic device capable of communication that he has; to only use those devices; not to delete or otherwise remove or disguise data on these devices; and to permit WA Police officers to review those devices.
5. The draft bail conditions prepared by Mr Hardy did not include home detention, and were fewer in number and restriction than those proposed by WA Police. However, Mr Hardy's counsel submitted that Mr Hardy would agree to a home detention condition and all of the additional conditions identified by WA Police if the court considered those to be appropriate.
6. The primary submission of WA Police is that there are no conditions that could be imposed that would sufficiently remove the risk of Mr Hardy threatening to harm Ms Sami or commit further violent offending against her, including home detention and electronic monitoring. Counsel for the WA Police relies in particular in this regard on the breach of the FVRO by Mr Hardy; Mr Hardy's past conduct regarding his ex‑wife; Mr Hardy contacting Ms Sami's father and the threats he allegedly conveyed to Ms Sami through her father; the strength of the prosecution case and the central role played by Ms Sami in that case. Whilst counsel for WA Police accepts that if a home detention condition with electronic monitoring would reduce the risks, they would not sufficiently remove risks.
7. Counsel for Mr Hardy referred to lack of any convictions other than the breach of the FVRO and the lack of any failure by Mr Hardy to comply with bail conditions to date. Further, counsel for Mr Hardy referred to the fact that Mr Hardy has not yet been given the opportunity to comply with the strict type of bail conditions proposed by the WA Police (if bail were to be granted).
8. In all the circumstances, I am not satisfied that any conditions less than a home detention condition, with electronic monitoring (combined with the other conditions proposed by WA Police) would sufficiently remove the remaining risks, and therefore I would not grant bail without a home detention condition.
9. I am of the view that a home detention condition, with electronic monitoring, would be required to sufficiently remove the risk of Mr Hardy re‑offending against Ms Sami, or endangering the safety or welfare of Ms Sami and her children.
10. I am also of the view that a home detention condition, with electronic monitoring, would also be required to sufficiently remove the risk of Mr Hardy attempting to pressure Ms Sami into withdrawing her cooperation for the prosecution. Whilst I accept that the risk of Mr Hardy interfering with Ms Sami as a witness is not completely alleviated if Mr Hardy were subject to a home detention condition with electronic monitoring, I consider such a condition, combined with the conditions proposed by WA Police regarding electronic devices, will sufficiently reduce that risk and the effectiveness of any attempts if made.
11. However, I am not satisfied that this second address is an appropriate address for home detention. Whilst it is located sufficiently far away from Ms Sami's address to sufficiently reduce the possibility of the risks, I have identified in terms of distance and the ability to put in place meaningful exclusion zones. Therefore, I am not satisfied that other aspects of the living conditions sufficiently reduce the possibility of the remaining risks. Whilst it at all times remains Mr Hardy's responsibility to comply with the terms of any home detention bail, and Mr Hardy is not being assessed on the basis of what others have done, I am concerned about the negative peer associations that may arise if Mr Hardy is made subject to home detention bail at this address. It is clear that Mr Fisher is going through his own separation at present, and has recently been served with an interim FVRO. It appears that the relationship has some elements of volatility at present, not all Mr Fisher's responsibility, that Mr Fisher will need to navigate. In all the circumstances, I am of the view that the address is not a sufficiently stable address for Mr Hardy to reside in accordance with a home detention condition and residing at this address will not sufficiently reduce the possibility of the remaining risks.

1. For these reasons, on 4 June 2025, I dismissed Mr Hardy's application for bail.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

[1] Milenkovski v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 99; (2011) 42 WAR 99 [39] - [44].

[2] YSN v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 155 [14] - [21].

[3] Bail Act, s 17 and sch 1 pt D.

[4] Bail Act, sch 1, pt D, cl 3.

[5] Camilleri v The State of Western Australia [2023] WASC 193 [26].

[6] Bail Act, sch 1, pt C, cl 3G(4) and Bail Act, sch 1, pt D, cl 3(4A).

[7] Bail Act, sch 1, pt C, cl 3G(5) and Bail Act, sch 1, pt E, cl 1.

[8] YSN v The State of Western Australia [17].