HIS HONOUR: Before the Court is an application for bail in relation to Greg Ceissman, who is charged with eight counts of breach of an Order that I issued on behalf of the Court, being an Interim Supervision Order under the Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (see: State of NSW v Ceissman [2018] NSWSC 508). The Interim Supervision Order ("ISO") imposed a number of conditions which, for reasons that were adumbrated in the reasons for judgment published after the orders were made, restricted conduct of the applicant for bail in a number of areas and required the applicant's supervision more generally.
The offences that have been alleged are: that the applicant failed to comply with the requirements of the ISO and had an undeclared communication application, namely, Skype; that the applicant resisted arrest of the police in the execution of that police officer's duty; that the applicant had breached the ISO, having an undeclared communication application, namely, WhatsApp; that, likewise, he had an undeclared communication application, namely, Facebook; that he had breached the ISO by disobeying a direction relating to his Internet access and use (presumably a reasonable direction, although that does not seem to be an item identified in the charge); that he had an undeclared communication application, namely, Telegram; that he had a further undeclared communication application, namely, Fuckbook, a dating application that allowed communication with unknown parties; and finally, the eighth count is that the applicant failed to comply with the requirements of the ISO in that he had an undeclared communication application, namely, Snapchat.
At the time that the application for bail was listed before the Court, in a sense as an ancillary proceeding to the application for an Extended Supervision Order on a permanent basis (see: State of NSW v Ceissman (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1237), there were four offences. A further four have been charged.
Each of the eight offences, except the resist arrest, are show-cause offences, meaning that pursuant to the provisions of s 16A of the Bail Act 2013 ("the Act"), the applicant for a release order or bail must satisfy the Court as to why his or her detention is not justified. If the applicant is capable of overcoming that hurdle, the applicant is then required to be assessed in relation to bail concerns, which are set out in s 17 of the Act.
Those bail concerns are: the failure to appear; the commission of a serious offence; the endangerment of the safety of, relevantly, individuals or the community; or the interference of witnesses. We can ignore the latter, given the only witnesses to these offences are police officers. While I am not suggesting that they cannot be interfered with in their capacity as witnesses, it is not a particularly likely scenario.
Those bail concerns are particularised in s 18 of the Act and, without deprecating that particularisation, it is fair to say each of the circumstances that the Court is required to consider that are listed in s 18 are circumstances that go to the assessment of the bail concerns that are contained in s 17 of the Bail Act.
As earlier stated, the applicant is the subject of an ISO. That ISO was granted by the Court in particular on the basis of a statement that the applicant was alleged to have made to another prisoner. That statement involved, as reported by that prisoner, that the applicant was to go overseas for the purpose of learning how to fight; was to return to Australia and conduct an attack on a police station; and attack a mall in the south-west of Sydney. The allegations were sufficient that, if proved, an Interim Supervision Order would be made.
There are a number of factors that are, to say the least, odd about keeping the applicant for bail in gaol. The allegation in the ESO is an allegation that the applicant was radicalised to extreme views in prison. The effect of keeping him in gaol is to expose him to the continued radicalisation that is said to have occurred while he was in prison in the first place. It should be added that his prison sentence, during which it is said he was radicalised, was imposed for an offence that had nothing to do with terrorism, and the terrorism allegation is one that arises only from the radicalisation that occurred in prison.
It is fair to say that a breach of an order of this Court is treated seriously by all courts. A breach of a bail condition is treated most seriously and, frankly, if a bail condition is breached it is unlikely that bail will be granted a second time.
Having said that, there is a defence, as I understand it, to the charges that have been preferred, and that defence depends upon a construction of the ISO. I make no comment on whether the ISO should be construed in the way that the defence suggests or otherwise. Nevertheless, his guilt is not wholly uncontroversial and it is not a matter in which he has pleaded guilty.
Even if he were to have pleaded guilty and even if he were to be found guilty of the charges that have been preferred (albeit, as I understand from the Crown, to be tried on indictment), it does not seem to me that the sentence that would be imposed, if it were a full-time custodial sentence, would be a sentence of great length. The applicant has already spent, as I understand it, two months in gaol on the basis of this breach and is there on remand.
While it is not strictly relevantly to these proceedings, the Court should not lose sight of the fact that the level of incarceration of persons of Aboriginal descent is alarmingly high. Most alarming about it is that often those persons are in gaol on remand. The fact that the applicant for bail is an Aboriginal is a factor that I am required to take into account pursuant to the terms of s 18 of the Bail Act. I take that factor into account.
It seems to me that, in many respects, the opposition by the Crown to bail being granted is an indirect way of having the applicant detained, in circumstances where the State of New South Wales makes it clear, by the nature of the application for an Extended Supervision Order, that the safety of the community can be sufficiently ameliorated by appropriately framed conditions. It seems to me, given the length of time that the applicant has already served on remand; the charges have, on legal advice for the applicant, a defence; and the risk to the safety of the community can be sufficiently ameliorated by the imposition of conditions, that the applicant has shown cause and it is appropriate in the circumstances that the Court grant bail.
On the charges already defined, bail is granted on the following conditions:
1. The applicant is to enter into an agreement to observe the following requirements as to conduct while at liberty on bail.
2. The applicant is to report by telephone to the reporting police station at Redfern each Monday, Wednesday and Friday between 8am and 6pm.
3. The applicant is to reside with his father at [redacted] or, alternatively, his mother at [redacted].
4. The applicant is to be of good behaviour.
5. The applicant is not to go within 500 metres of any international points of departure.
6. The applicant is not to apply for a passport or any travel document.
7. Otherwise, the applicant is to abide by the conditions imposed in the interim supervision order granted by the Court on 13 April 2018 and the applicant is to abide by those conditions whether or not there is in place an interim supervision order during the time that bail continues.
8. Bail may be entered before any person authorised under the Bail Act 2013.
9. Bail is to be automatically revoked in the event of any breach of any one of these conditions and the applicant may thereupon be arrested by any police officer.
[3]
Amendments
10 August 2018 - 10/08/18 - Amended to reflect correct SCT file number
13 September 2018 - coversheet and paragraph [14] - redacted addresses
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 13 September 2018