The court noted that bail conditions must address actual risks rather than theoretical possibilities
The WA Supreme Court narrowed bail conditions to restrict the applicant's communication with a specific motorcycle club, finding broader restrictions unnecessary while maintaining conditions to mitigate risks of reoffending.
The case involved alleged drug-related offences tied to the Gypsy Jokers motorcycle club. The applicant, who faces charges under the Criminal Code for dealing with the proceeds of an offence, sought to remove two bail conditions: prohibitions against associating with outlaw motorcycle gang (OMCG) members and communicating with a co-accused.
The court upheld the necessity of bail conditions restricting communication with members of the Gypsy Jokers motorcycle club but adjusted their scope. The ruling emphasised that the restrictions should apply specifically to Gypsy Jokers members rather than broadly to all OMCGs.
The applicant, a sole proprietor of businesses tied to custom motorcycle services, including one specialising in airbrushing for OMCG members, argued the conditions jeopardised his livelihood. He claimed his businesses depended on clientele linked to motorcycle gangs and cited financial hardship. However, the court found insufficient evidence to substantiate the financial risks posed by the restrictions.
The charges stemmed from a Gang Crime Squad operation in early 2024. Police alleged that undercover operatives purchased methamphetamine from the co-accused, a Gypsy Jokers member. Surveillance linked the co-accused to the applicant’s residence and later to $6,500 in marked cash discovered at a property associated with the applicant. Subsequent searches uncovered $460,030 in cash, some tied to the undercover operation, alongside other circumstantial evidence.
The Supreme Court considered whether the conditions appropriately balanced public interest and individual hardship, as required under the Bail Act 1982 (WA). The court noted that bail conditions must address actual risks rather than theoretical possibilities. However, it found credible evidence suggesting the applicant might engage in further criminal activities without specific restrictions.
The court rejected the applicant’s argument that his lack of offences during the investigation implied a low reoffending risk. It reasoned that his knowledge of being under investigation likely deterred criminal behaviour during that time.
While the applicant presented evidence of financial reliance on OMCG clientele, the court deemed it speculative. The limited financial documentation provided failed to clarify the extent of the applicant’s dependence on Gypsy Jokers members or the potential impact of narrower bail conditions.
The court ruled that the conditions prohibiting association with all OMCGs were overly broad. It proposed refining the conditions to prohibit the applicant from contacting members or applicants of the Gypsy Jokers specifically. Furthermore, the court found the original conditions ambiguous and instructed counsel to reframe them for clarity.
The court concluded that the adjusted conditions were necessary to mitigate the risks of reoffending while on bail and did not impose undue hardship on the applicant.
