Bail Act 1982 (WA), s 28(1), s 28(2)(b), s 31(1), s 51(1), s 51(2), s 52

Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 119, s 120

Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 (WA), pt I, r 3(1)

Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 50A

[This decision was delivered extemporaneously on 17 October 2025. It has been edited from the transcript to correct minor errors, matters of grammar and infelicities of expression.]

1. On 4 June 2024 the accused was convicted following a trial before Judge Gething DCJ (as he then was) and a jury. She was granted bail to return to court the next day. She signed a bail undertaking requiring her attendance on 5 June 2024 but she failed to attend in accordance with that undertaking.[1]
2. The accused is charged under s 51(1) of the Bail Act 1982 (WA) with failing to comply with a condition of bail without reasonable cause.[2] She pleaded not guilty and the trial commenced before me on 7 October 2025.
3. Section 52 of the Bail Act provides that, where an accused is required to appear before the District Court, a breach of bail should be dealt with by a judge of that court. Further, s 52 provides that a charge under s 51 of the Bail Act is to be tried summarily.

1. The same principles of law and procedure apply as if the trial were to be held before a jury. I may make any findings and give any verdict that a jury could have made.
2. My judgment must include the principles of law I have applied and the findings of fact upon which I have relied: s 119 and s 120 Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA).
3. I must proceed on the basis that the accused is presumed to be innocent. The onus is on the State to prove the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The accused bears no onus of proof.
4. If the State has failed to prove every element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted.
5. My verdict must be based on the evidence. I must not speculate about matters which are not in evidence.
6. I must assess the credibility and reliability of each witness who has given evidence. I must do so dispassionately. I must not decide the case on sympathy for or prejudice towards any person.
7. I remind myself that an accused person has a right to remain silent. An accused person is not obliged to give evidence or call any evidence. In this case, the accused elected not to give or call any evidence. The fact that the accused chose not to give evidence does not detract from the important principles in our system of law that the onus is on the prosecution to prove a charge and the accused is presumed to be innocent. An accused person remains innocent unless and until the charge against her has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
8. The fact that the accused chose not to give evidence cannot be used to fill any gaps in the prosecution case.
9. I may consider any submissions made by the State and the accused, but I must be mindful that submissions are not evidence. I must not draw an inference that the accused is guilty because she elected not to give or call any evidence.
10. Insofar as the State relies on circumstantial evidence - that is, evidence of a fact or a combination of facts from which another fact can be inferred - I must not draw an inference against the accused unless it is the only reasonable inference that can be drawn. I must draw inferences most favourable to the accused.

1. The prosecution case is that the accused committed an offence under s 51(1) of the Bail Act, which provides:
   1. Failing to comply with bail undertaking, offence

(1) An accused who, without reasonable cause, fails to comply with the requirement of his bail undertaking mentioned in section 28(2)(a) commits an offence.

1. Section 28(1) and s 28(2)(a) relevantly provide:
   1. Nature of bail undertaking and when required

(1) An accused shall not be released on bail for an appearance in court unless the accused has entered into a bail undertaking for that appearance or is deemed to have done so under section 31(3).

(2) A bail undertaking is an undertaking in writing by an accused in the prescribed form -

(a) that the accused will appear at a time and place specified, or deemed by section 31(3) to be specified, in the undertaking; and

1. Section 51(1) and s 28(1), when read together, mean that there are three elements of an offence under s 51(1) of the Bail Act in addition to the element of identity. The State must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused entered a bail undertaking, that she failed to comply with a requirement of her bail undertaking, and did so without reasonable cause. In this case, the prosecution must prove the following:

(a) that the accused was the person who failed to do the relevant act or acts constituting the breach, (the identity question);

(b) that the accused entered into a bail undertaking to appear in the District Court at the time and place specified or deemed by s 31(3) of the Bail Act to be specified;

(c) that the accused failed to appear in answer to her bail at the District Court on 5 June 2024; and

(d) that the accused failed to appear without reasonable cause.

1. Section 51(2), read with s 28(2)(b) of the Bail Act, proscribes a statutory alternative to a charge under s 51(1). An offence under s 51(2), read with s 28(2)(b) creates an offence where a person fails to appear as soon as practicable after they are required to attend.
2. If I find the accused guilty under s 51(1), I would not be required to consider the statutory alternative.

Procedural matters - objections to the evidence

1. Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the accused filed over 80 pages of objections to the evidence and renewed those objections orally during the hearing. The accused asserted that evidence from Perth Airport, the Australian Border Force and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade as to her movements from 5 June 2024 was 'illegally obtained'. She asserted that the police had breached, inter alia, the Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA), the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and the Australian Border Force Act 2015 (Cth).
2. The objections to evidence on the grounds of illegally obtained evidence raised the possibility that it would be necessary to hear evidence bearing on that question. To avoid the prospect of having to hear the evidence twice, the accused and the State agreed that I should hear the evidence once, subject to me ruling on the issue of admissibility and weight at a later stage.[3]
3. During the course of the trial, I made a number of rulings. At the conclusion of the evidence and before the State closed its case, I ruled against the accused on her objections and gave oral reasons. Those reasons appear in the transcript and I do not intend to repeat them here.[4] In short, the contention that the prosecution evidence was based on illegally obtained evidence is without merit.

1. The State called a number of witnesses. Those witnesses included Ewan Christie, (the former associate to his Honour Gething DCJ), Jayson Haines, (an employee of Perth Airport), Michael Spencer, (an employee of Border Force), Constable Liam Pratt and Sergeant Nicholas Berragan of the Western Australia Police Force and Elise James from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. A number of exhibits were tendered through those witnesses.
2. At the conclusion of the State case, the accused submitted that there was no case to answer and I ruled against her. My reasons for so ruling appear in the transcript of proceedings.[5] I do not intend to repeat my ruling here.
3. After ruling on the accused's no case submission, I then heard submissions from the State and the accused concerning whether the accused would be permitted to call evidence from a clinical psychologist. I ruled that the proposed evidence was not admissible.[6]
4. The accused then elected not to give evidence in her own defence or call any witnesses.

The witnesses for the prosecution were credible and reliable and I accept their evidence

1. I accept that each of the prosecution witnesses gave truthful and reliable evidence. To the extent that there may have on occasion been a discrepancy between their recollections and the documents produced, my findings of their credibility are not diminished. I accept the evidence of the State witnesses in their entirety.

1. Mrs Frigger cross-examined each of the witnesses at length. In particular, she sought to challenge the evidence of Mr Christie. I found Mr Christie to be an impressive witness. His evidence was clear, measured and thoughtful. He was willing to make concessions when he could not remember precise details. The accused repeatedly and without foundation accused Mr Christie of lying. Mr Christie was respectful and dignified in his denials.
2. To the extent that Mr Christie admitted some failure of memory in relation to certain details, this could be expected, given the effluxion of time. However, Mr Christie's memory of important events was not seriously challenged. I found his evidence to be consistent with the record of proceedings contained in the transcript, the bail papers, the arrest warrant and other records produced in evidence.
3. The State tendered a transcript of proceedings before Judge Gething together with a certificate under s 50A of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA) certifying the transcript as evidence of the contents of the recording of those proceedings.[7] The State also tendered and played the audio of proceedings following the jury verdict on 4 June 2024.[8]

1. Having regard to the evidence led and which I accept, I find the following facts proven beyond reasonable doubt.

1. The accused appeared in the District Court of Western Australia on 4 June 2024 where she was convicted following a trial by jury before his Honour Judge Gething DCJ of one count of knowingly making a false statement in an affidavit.[9]
2. The accused represented herself at the trial. The transcript of the last day of trial[10] included the transcription of the accused's address to the jury. It is apparent from the transcript that the accused was an active and engaged participant in the process. She presented as highly intelligent, articulate and logical.[11]
3. Following the jury verdict, his Honour Judge Gething told the accused that he intended to sentence her on Friday of that week, being Friday, 7 June 2024. The transcript reveals that the accused requested 'an extra couple of days' to remain on bail pending sentence. The State opposed bail.
4. The accused told his Honour the following:[12]

I haven't never come to court or - - or disobeyed the bail conditions et cetera. I don't believe I am any risk of escaping from - from Perth and, in those circumstances, I'd ask for just an extra couple of days to get our affairs in order for that - for that purpose.

1. After hearing from the State, his Honour Judge Gething granted the accused bail until the next day. His Honour, relevantly, said:[13]

GETHING DCJ: Okay. Mrs Frigger, this is what I'm going to do. I'm going to sentence on Friday. I'm going to grant you bail overnight. I'm going to bring you back in at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. When you're back in at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, I'm going to make a suite of orders. I want you to surrender your passport - I want you to surrender all passports, and I'm going to make some flight risk orders.

The evidence and materials before me suggest that there's some assets - or there's some connections overseas. As I said in my - Mr Cvetkoski's position is quite correct, that that's the usual order, and it's not one that it's a sort of exception for that, but I'm prepared to give you that exception but till Friday.

So the current bail conditions - you'll have to re-sign your bail. I'll increase the bail. So the bail amount is $50,000, the surety amount is $50,000. The surety to be provided by Helmut Hubert Josef Frigger. To reside at [an address]. To remain at that address overnight, and not leave save for emergencies.

Now, I'm not going to make you surrender your passport tonight, because I don't want you in prison overnight just because you haven't surrendered your passport. So I'm going to adjourn the matter to 9 o'clock - 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. You can expect at that time I'll make an order requiring you to surrender your passport, so you need to bring all your passports with you, any European ones and also your - any current Australian passport. And I'll also make orders in relation to approaching airports.

...

GETHING DCJ: Yes. Okay. So, The accused, I'm granting you bail; personal bail $50,000, surety $50,000. To reside at [an address], to remain at that address overnight, and not leave save for emergency. You need to be back in the court precinct by 9.30 tomorrow morning, reporting in to the custody centre.

1. After the court rose, Judge Gething's Associate Ewan Christie prepared the bail papers to facilitate the accused's release.
2. Mr Christie, who qualified as a lawyer in June 2024, had worked as the usher to his Honour between December 2023 and April 2024. He began working as his Honour's Associate in April 2024.[14] He was present at all times during the accused's trial to the best of his recollection. Mr Christie recalled being notified the day after the trial that the accused had left the country.[15]
3. Mr Christie recalled signing the accused's bail papers.[16] Mr Christie's evidence was that, as the Associate, he would pay attention to the conditions of bail that the judge was reading out. He would record those into the system using a computer. He said there are a number of pre-populated sections which are filled as a result of entering that information. He explained that there is then paperwork, which you print out and complete. He said that it made sense to complete the surety paperwork first, because the bail undertaking relies on the surety being satisfactory and approved. He completed the surety paperwork (the surety being the accused's husband, Mr Frigger) first.
4. After approving Mr Frigger as surety, he sat down with the accused to complete her bail paperwork.[17]
5. Mr Christie identified the notice to the surety and identified the conditions entered on the bail undertaking read out by Gething DCJ in court. Mr Christie entered the date that the accused was required to return to court, namely 5 June 2024.[18]
6. Mr Christie explained that the time for attendance on the surety and bail undertaking differed from the time that his Honour had ordered the accused to attend because the system generates a time 45 minutes before the court hearing. In this instance Mr Christie had entered 10.00 am as the time for the court hearing which registers as 9.15 am on the bail paperwork as generated by the system.[19]
7. Mr Christie signed the page as the surety approval officer, designating his position as 'clerk of arraigns'.[20] The accused has sought to make something of the fact that Mr Christie had described himself as both the clerk of arraigns and the associate. Nothing turns on this. The term 'clerk of arraigns' interchange with the term 'associate':[21] Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 (WA) (Part 1 r 3(1)).
8. Mr Christie identified the address and telephone number for Mr Frigger on the surety undertaking which was the same address and telephone number appearing in documentation produced by Australian Border Force.[22]
9. Mr Frigger's signature on the surety undertaking appears to have been signed on 4 May 2024. However, Mr Christie said that this was an error as the date was in fact 4 June 2024. Mr Frigger signed in his presence and Mr Christie approved him as surety.[23]
10. The accused was present when Mr Frigger signed the surety papers with Mr Christie. Mr Christie recalled Mr Frigger saying 'this is an injustice' in the presence of the accused. Mr Christie also recalled Mr Frigger saying to him that he (Mr Christie) 'would not look at him (Mr Frigger) in the eyes' when he was speaking to him and the accused telling Mr Frigger to 'calm down'.[24]
11. The bail undertaking which the accused signed before Mr Christie relevantly included the place, date, and time for appearance as the District Court Perth on Wednesday, 5 June 2024 at 9.15 am. It also included the following condition:

[P]ersonal undertaking in the amount of $50. 000; surety in the amount of $50, 000 to be provided by Harmut [sic] Hubert Josef Frigger; The accused is to reside at [an address]; The accused is to remain at the address overnight and not leave save for an emergency.

(emphasis added)

1. Further, the undertaking stated:[25]

1. to appear at the District Court at 9.15 am on Wednesday, 5 June 2024. And to comply with the conditions set out above. 2. that, if I am notified by a judicial officer or a court official of a different time or a different time and place for my appearance, I will appear at the time or at the time and place so notified;

1. that, if I fail to appear in court as required, I will, as soon as is practicable, appear at the court when it is sitting.

1. After the accused signed the bail undertaking, Mr Christie provided her with a copy of the undertaking. The document contained other information, including the accused's details, charges, matter number, and date and time for her to appear.
2. Mr Christie witnessed the accused sign the undertaking and signed the document himself. Relevantly, the document contained a section which acknowledges that Mr Christie signed the undertaking and gave a copy of the bail undertaking to the accused. The document reads:

I acknowledge that I have been given a copy of the bail undertaking and the form notice to accused attached to or on the reverse of the copy the above undertaking was entered into by the accused before me after I had been informed by him that he had read the undertaking / read the undertaking to him / had the undertaking translated to him.

1. After the accused signed the bail undertaking she was released from the custody of the court.

1. I note that the conditions I have referred to are standard conditions in a bail undertaking. Those standards conditions appear in s 28(2)(a) and s 28(2)(b) of the Bail Act:
   1. Nature of bail undertaking and when required

(2) A bail undertaking is an undertaking in writing by an accused in the prescribed form -

(a) that the accused will appear at a time and place specified, or deemed by section 31(3) to be specified, in the undertaking; and

(b) that if the accused fails to appear at that time and place the accused will, as soon as is practicable, appear at the court at which the accused was required to appear, when that court is sitting;

1. The accused cross-examined Mr Christie extensively, challenging his account of the circumstances in which the surety and bail papers were prepared.
2. Mr Christie agreed that what Judge Gething had said about the time for appearance (ie: 10 am) and what was in the bail undertaking (ie: 9.15 am) were different.[26]
3. Mr Christie denied that he had made a false statement when he said that he had 'sat down' with the accused and completed the bail undertaking with her. Under cross-examination, Mr Christie said that he completed the paperwork at the bar table and not in the dock, as the accused had suggested.[27]
4. Mr Christie denied that he did not tell the accused there was a difference in the time between what Judge Gething had said was the time for appearance and what was in the bail undertaking.[28] Mr Christie said that he had pointed out the words in bold in the undertaking and reminded her that she needed to be at the District Court building at 9.15 am on 5 June 2024.[29] The words in bold are the stated the time and place namely 5 June 2024 at 9.15 am.[30]
5. Mr Christie's evidence was that the accused had 'intimated' that she understood the terms of the bail undertaking. Mr Christie said that he gave the accused the opportunity to read the bail undertaking and asked her if she had any other questions but she did not. Having been in court at the time that his Honour had read her the bail conditions, together with the fact that the accused had no other questions of him, Mr Christie formed the view that the accused had understood the bail undertaking. Mr Christie further said that, when she went on to sign the undertaking, that 'gave him confidence' that she had read the bail undertaking.[31]

1. Shortly after 3.16 am the next morning, 5 June 2024, CCTV footage produced by the witness, Jayson Allan Haines, a security operation specialist at Perth Airport,[32] shows the accused arriving at the international airport in car registration number *****19.[33] The vehicle was, according to the Department of Transport, registered to the accused.[34] The State also tendered a still photograph of the video showing an image of the car and two people who the State says are Mr Frigger and the accused.[35]
2. The accused had objected to the CCTV evidence, asserting it had been illegally obtained. The witness Jayson Haines was responsible for the use and monitoring of Perth Airport closed circuit television (CCTV) and dealing with any requests to view CCTV footage.[36] He was authorised to disclose CCTV footage to police. Before he became an authorised person, he had undergone training with the Perth Airport legal team. This included training as to the 'terms and conditions' under which CCTV could be released, having regard to the provisions of the 'Privacy Act'.[37]
3. On 12 June 2024, Mr Haines received a formal request to view CCTV footage from Western Australia Police.[38] Mr Haines signed the document as an authorised person, executed on behalf of Perth Airport. He then met with the officer who made the request.[39] He produced a Release of Records form signed by him on 12 June 2024 and Western Australia Police Cadet Joshua Lake on 14 June 2024. Mr Haines met with Western Australia Police Cadet Joshua Lake on 14 June 2024.
4. Mr Haines uploaded the CCTV to a disc and handed it to the officer on the release form, keeping the original copy. For the reasons which appear in my ruling earlier in these proceedings,[40] the evidence was not illegally obtained.
5. Passenger movement records produced by Michael Spencer, the Acting Inspector of Australian Border Force, revealed that the accused had departed on flight SQ224 to Singapore and did not return to Australia until 23 July 2024.[41]
6. Mr Spencer recalled receiving two requests relevant to the present proceedings. The first was in relation to an incoming passenger card and one was a request for movement records. He understood that the request related to an Angela Reid (a known alias for the accused).[42]
7. Mr Spencer gave evidence that there were two separate requests in relation to the passenger card for Angela Reid and a request in relation to her movement records.[43]
8. Mr Spencer authorised the release of the passenger movement records. He signed a 'Release of Records' form which stated that the Records 'can be used by the Recipient Party for the following purposes only: For Investigation and Prosecution purposes only'.[44]
9. In response to lawful requests from the WA Police, Mr Spencer produced passenger movement records for Angela Cecilia Theresa Reid, with her country of birth recorded as India and a person ID reference number ******74. These records show that the accused departed Perth on 5 June 2024[45] on Singapore Airways flight SQ 224 and arrived back in Perth on 23 July 2024.[46]
10. Further, in response to a lawful request from WA Police, Mr Spencer produced an image of a passenger card, being a document which every passenger coming into Australia must complete. The passenger cards are filled out in handwriting.[47] Mr Spencer produced a passenger card signed by Angela Cecilia Theresa Reid. The passenger card included an emergency contact as Hartmut Frigger and a mobile number matching the mobile number supplied in the surety undertaking that Mr Frigger himself had signed.[48]
11. The witness, Elise Rachel James, a senior investigator at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade produced copies of a passport application in the name of Angela Cecilia Theresa Reid. She gave this to WA Police pursuant to a lawful request.[49] Ms James confirmed that the person, Angela Cecilia Theresa Reid was the same person as the accused according to records held by the Passports Office.[50]
12. The accused had objected to the evidence of personal information revealed in the passenger movement records, the passenger card and her passport documents on the basis that it was illegally obtained and in breach of, inter alia, the Migration Act, the Australian Border Force Act and the Privacy Act. I was satisfied that the evidence was not illegally obtained for the reasons which appear at in my earlier ruling.[51]

1. Sometime in the morning of 5 June 2024, Mr Christie was advised by an agency (the name of which he could not recall) that the accused had, since being released to bail, boarded a plane to Singapore with her final destination unknown. He said that a security officer at the court told him that the accused had not surrendered to detention.[52]
2. The records show that his Honour Judge Gething convened the court shortly after 10.00 am. The accused was not present when called.[53] His Honour then issued a warrant for her arrest and later issued a certificate for her failure to appear under s 64 of the Bail Act.[54]
3. Mr Christie said that he prepared the arrest warrant and emailed a copy to the Western Australia Police.[55]

1. Mrs Frigger attempted to file a Notice of Acting on behalf of solicitors in Europe. However, his Honour Judge Gething ordered that service could not be accepted, as the accused was in breach of her bail undertaking. His Honour published a decision recording his order.[56]

1. The accused flew back to Perth on 23 July 2024. That day, officers from Belmont Police, including Constable Liam Pratt, went to Perth Airport to execute the arrest warrant. Mrs Frigger was placed under arrest.[57] Constable Pratt identified Mrs Frigger's image from a photograph taken at Perth Airport at the time of her arrest.[58] He confirmed that the warrant was executed at 8.07 am.

The accused is charged and served with the prosecution notice

1. Sergeant Nicholas Berragan was the investigating officer. He conducted a number of investigations in relation to Mrs Frigger's whereabouts following her failure to appear on 5 June 2024 and served her with a prosecution notice.[59]

1. Although there has been no formal admission, identity is not seriously in issue.
2. The accused has not suggested that she is not the person named in the prosecution notice or that she did not engage in the conduct alleged by the prosecution.
3. The evidence unequivocally establishes that Mrs Frigger is the person named in the prosecution notice and that she is the person who failed to appear in answer to her bail undertaking. Evidence of identity is established beyond reasonable doubt by the following evidence.
4. First, when Mrs Frigger appeared before Judge Gething on 4 June 2024, she acknowledged that she was Angela Cecilia Theresa Frigger.[60]
5. Secondly, she signed a bail undertaking before Mr Christie in the name Angela Cecilia Theresa Frigger.[61]
6. Thirdly, the CCTV footage and the accompanying still photograph[62] from the airport shows a woman fitting her description arriving in a silver Camry registration number **** *19. The Department of Transport Certificate of Evidence shows this to be registered in the name of Angela Cecilia Theresa Frigger at an address matching the address on her bail undertaking.[63]
7. Fourthly, on the same day she arrived at the international airport, passenger movement records for Angela Cecilia T Reid, date of birth, with the 'person ID' number ****84, established a person with that identity departed Perth Airport on 5 June 2024. The evidence of Ms James was that Angela Cecilia T. Reid, with those identifying features, is the accused.[64]
8. Fifthly, the passenger card for her re-entry to Australia on 23 July 2024 is signed in the name of Angela Reid. The passenger card contains the name of Mrs Frigger's husband, Hartmut Frigger, as her emergency contact and contains an address matching the address on her bail undertaking.[65]
9. Sixthly, when arrested by Constable Pratt at Perth Airport on 23 July 2024, she did not dispute her identity.[66]
10. Seventhly, the evidence of Ms James was that her passport renewal application was made in the name of Angela Cecilia Theresa Reid on 10 September 2019. The application contains a photograph which matches the accused's appearance and specifies her home address as the same address on her bail undertaking.[67]

1. The second element is that the accused must have signed a bail undertaking. The evidence of Mr Christie is that Mrs Frigger signed the bail undertaking[68] and this is not challenged.
2. I accept the evidence of Mr Christie that the accused signed the bail undertaking, and I am satisfied that the State has proven this element beyond reasonable doubt.

Element three - failed to comply with a condition of the bail undertaking

1. The third element is that the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused failed to comply with the condition of the bail undertaking. Mrs Frigger submitted that the evidence did not establish that Mr Christie had complied with his obligations under s 30 of the Bail Act, which provides as follows:
   1. Duties of person before whom bail undertaking is entered into

(1) The person before whom a bail undertaking is to be entered into by an accused shall before it is entered into -

(ii) be informed by the accused that the accused has read it; or

(iii) if necessary, have it translated to the accused;

(b) ensure that all conditions which are to be complied with before the release of the accused have been complied with.

Did Mr Christie's alleged failure to comply with s 30 of the Bail Act invalidate the undertaking?

1. I am satisfied, on the basis of Mr Christie's evidence, that he was informed by the accused that she had read the bail undertaking: Mr Christie had drawn her attention to the conditions in bold prior to her signing it.
2. The accused has submitted that Mr Christie did not give an unequivocal account of having read the undertaking, or informing her that she had read the undertaking. I reject that submission.
3. Mr Christie's evidence was that the accused had informed him, by words and conduct, that she had been informed about the bail conditions. His evidence was that she was present when his Honour Judge Gething explained the terms of bail to her.
4. Mr Christie's evidence was that she had intimated that she had understood the conditions.

Difference between the time stated for attendance by Gething DCJ and the time for attendance in the bail undertaking is immaterial

1. The bail undertaking signed by the accused purported to require her attendance at 9.15 am on 5 June 2024. His Honour Judge Gething, had notified the accused orally that the time for her appearance was 10.00 am on 5 June 2024.
2. Is the discrepancy between the time stated by Judge Gething and the time stated on the bail undertaking significant to the accused's assertion that the bail undertaking was invalid? In my view, nothing turns on this. That is because s 28(1) of the Bail Act simply requires that a person shall not be released on bail for an appearance in court unless they have first entered into a bail undertaking, or they are deemed to have done so under s 31(3) Bail Act.
3. Sections 31(1), s 31(2)(a) and s 31(3) relevantly provide:
   1. Different time and place for appearance, substituting

(1) A different time or a different time and place may be substituted in accordance with this section for the time and place for appearance specified, or deemed by this section to be specified, in a bail undertaking.

(2) A different time, or a different time and place, for the appearance by the accused may be substituted as mentioned in subsection (1) -

(a) upon an adjournment of proceedings at which the accused is present, by the judicial officer, if he has power to grant bail for that appearance, fixing a time and place for the resumed proceedings and notifying the accused orally thereof;

(3) Where a different time or a different time and place is notified to an accused pursuant to subsection (2) the bail undertaking shall be deemed to be amended to specify that time or that time and place for appearance, and the terms and conditions thereof shall continue to apply as so amended as if the accused had entered into the bail undertaking in that form.

1. The critical fact is that the accused had signed a bail undertaking in the prescribed form. The time and the place specified in the undertaking, that is 9.15 am, is deemed to be 10 am by the operation of s 31(3).
2. It is immaterial, as the accused submits, that the State has 'failed' to prove she was not present at 9.15 am, because the matter was not called on at that time. The evidence establishes that she could not have attended at that time, because she had fled the country. She could not have attended then or at any other time as soon as reasonably practicable thereafter.

Even if s 30 was not complied with the bail undertaking was not 'void'

1. The accused's submission that Mr Christie did not strictly comply with s 30 contains a logical fallacy. If the accused's submission that the bail undertaking was 'invalid', and therefore, as she put it, 'void ab initio' she could not have been released on bail in the first place. That could not have been the intended effect of s 30.
2. The accused submitted that, as there was no condition of her bail preventing international travel, the evidence concerning her going to the airport and leaving Australia was not admissible. That submission has no merit. The relevant condition is the requirement to attend court on 5 June 2024.
3. The terms of Judge Gething's orders, as reflected in the bail, undertaking plainly prevented her from going to the airport. The terms of bail required her to stay at home overnight and not leave, except in an emergency. There was no evidence of such an emergency.
4. I am therefore satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused 'failed to comply' with a condition of her undertaking.

1. The fourth and final element is that the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had no reasonable cause for her failure to comply with the undertaking. There is no direct evidence of the presence of or absence of reasonable cause, other than the accused's non-attendance. The relevant question is whether, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the State, the evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt the absence of reasonable cause. The following is relevant to the issue of reasonable cause.
2. The transcript of proceedings on 4 June 2024 and the corresponding records reveals that the accused engaged articulately and intelligently with his Honour Judge Gething and the jury on the last day of her trial, including at the time his Honour was making orders for her release to bail. The accused could not have misunderstood her obligation to appear in court the next day.
3. Further, Mr Christie's evidence was that he had explained to the accused her obligation to attend court the next day when she signed the undertaking; and she had intimated to him that she understood that obligation.
4. The accused's conduct in travelling to the international airport and boarding an international flight was a rational decision. The CCTV footage shows her demeanour to be calm and purposeful. She exhibited no signs of being under duress.
5. On the evidence adduced, there is no rational basis for inferring that the accused had a reasonable cause for her failure to attend court on 5 June 2024.
6. In some circumstances where there had been a failure of the person before whom a bail undertaking is entered to comply with s 30 of the Bail Act it may be possible to establish reasonable cause. However, in my view, that could only occur if the failure to comply with s 30 led to the bailee misunderstanding the conditions of the bail undertaking.
7. One example which springs to mind would be the case of an accused of low intelligence or with communication difficulties or who was unfamiliar with the court process. The accused is not the kind of person I have just described.
8. It is important to observe that the accused told his Honour Judge Gething on 4 June 2024 that she was not a 'flight risk'. This shows that she was conscious that she should not leave the country. She had prepared grounds for appeal and intended to apply for bail pending appeal. This leads me to conclude that she could not have mistaken her obligation to present at court. The irresistible conclusion is that the accused was aware she was likely to be remanded in custody and wished to avoid that prospect.
9. The accused submitted that she had a reasonable cause for her non-attendance, namely her distress at being convicted and her need to ensure that she was able to prepare an appeal. There has been no evidence to that effect. I very much doubt that this would, in any event, be a proper basis for establishing reasonable cause.
10. The accused had intended to adduce evidence from a clinical psychologist concerning her mental state at the relevant time. However, that I ruled that the evidence was not admissible for reasons which appear in the transcript.[69]
11. The State has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused failed to appear in breach of her undertaking and that she did so without reasonable cause.
12. I find the charge proven to the requisite standard. I find the accused guilty and I enter a judgment of conviction.

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

[1] Exhibit 1, Exhibit 1.1 and Exhibit 1.2, transcript of trial before Gething DCJ on 4 June 2024 and evidentiary certificate, s 50 of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA).

[2] Exhibit 22, Prosecution Notice dated 23 July 2024.

[5] ts 3060 - ts 3098 (Accused submissions); ts 3099 - ts 3108 (State submissions); ts 3108 - ts 3111 (Judge's ruling).

[8] Exhibit 2, Record of proceedings before Gething DCJ following jury verdict.

[9] ts 2406 (Transcript of trial on Indictment number 1112 of 2019).

[11] See for example, ts 2337 - ts 2357, ts 2397 - ts 2399.

[22] ts 2710; Exhibit 3, Notice to Surety as to terms of bail for Harmut Frigger; Exhibit 4, Notice to Surety as to terms of bail.

[23] ts 2712 - ts 2714; Exhibit 3, Surety notice; Exhibit 4, Notice to surety as to terms of bail.

[25] Exhibit 5, Form 6 Bail Undertaking.

[28] ts 2736; Exhibit 5, Form 6 Bail Undertaking.

[32] Exhibit 12, Video footage from Perth Airport.

[33] Exhibit 12 and Exhibit 12.2. This car is registered to the accused, Exhibit 18, Photograph at Perth Airport.

[34] Exhibit 19, Certificate of Evidence from Department of Transport.

[35] Exhibit 12.1, Still image of video of CCTV footage of Perth Airport, ts 2777; Exhibit 12.1, Still image of the video of CCTV footage of Perth Airport showing silver vehicle, registration ****-*19.

[38] ts 2773; Exhibit 11, The Perth Airport release of records form signed by Mr Haines.

[39] ts 2776; Exhibit 11, The Perth Airport release of records form signed by Mr Haines.

[41] Exhibit 14 and Exhibit 15, Movement Record for Angela Frigger, Passenger Card.

[44] Exhibit 11, Release of Records Form.

[46] ts 2813; Exhibit 14.1 and Exhibit 14.2, Movement records for Angela Reid (aka Frigger) and movement records legend.

[49] ts 3039 - ts 3040; ts 3048; Exhibit 23, Request for Disclosure.

[50] ts 3033; Exhibit 20, Documents relating to Australian Passport Renewal Application.

[53] Exhibit 6.1, Recording of proceedings before Gething DCJ; transcript of proceedings before Gething DCJ on 5 June 2024; Exhibit 6.3, Certificate granted under s 50A of the Evidence Act; ts 2746.

[54] Exhibit 8, Certificate s 64 Bail Act issued 5 June 2024.

[55] ts 2721; Exhibit 7, Arrest warrant of Mrs Frigger; Exhibit 8, Certificate under s 64 of the Bail Act; ts 2754.

[56] Exhibit 9, The State of Western Australia v Frigger [No 2] [2024] WADC 50.

[57] Exhibit 7, Arrest Warrant of Mrs Frigger and Exhibit 10, Executed Arrest Warrant, 23 July 2024.

[59] Prosecution notice PE 1049 of 2024.

[61] Exhibit 5, Form 6 Bail Undertaking.

[63] Exhibit 19, Certificate of evidence from Department of Transport.

[67] Exhibit 20, 5 pages of documents relating to Australian Passport Renewal Application.