The full text of Gao Yunxiang`s bail case was made public on Australian court website yesterday (July 4). Judge McCallum on duty made full public the granting of bail in the case of Xinzhou v. Gao Yunxiang, explaining in detail the reasons why Gao Yunxiang could be released on bail.
Most of the content has been reported by the media, and the judge confirmed that the victim found Gao Yunxiang`s semen DNA. on the hotel pillowcase. In addition, according to the verdict, Gao Yunxiang went to the hotel room because Wang Jing called him, Wang Jing had been with the victim for a period of time.
Gao entered the room and had a brief conversation with the victim. Then Gao approached her and kissed her mouth-to-mouth, guiding her towards the bed.
According to the victim`s testimony to the police, Gao Yunxiang and Wang Jing raised her legs and the victim struggled so hard that her legs were bruised and photo proved.
There is no doubt that the contents of these judgments have derailed Gao Yunxiang.
However, Gao Yunxiang Studio released a statement after the successful bail, said Gao Yunxiang was seduced by the woman, not forced, the woman called the police because her husband found, but Gao Yunxiang Studio did not explain the DNA problem.
The following is the full text of the judgement:
Case reference No.: R v Gao [2018] NSWSC 1011
Date of hearing: 28 June 2018
Date of judgement: 29 June 2018
Decision result: request for bail granted on condition that the relevant conditions are met
Key words in this case: bail-legal bail requirements-strength of the prosecution`s argument-assessment of concerns about whether bail conditions can be met-risk of absconding-whether the relevant bail conditions, once established, are legal.
[法] text of the judgment
McCallum J
1. Before I formally begin to read the judgment in this case, I would like to inform all of you at the scene at court that, in relation to the criminal acts associated with this case, if in the relevant litigation, The act of naming an informant or providing information identifying the informant also constitutes a crime.
2. Gao Yunxiang has been charged with two separate sexual crime acts for violating sections 61J (1) and 61JA (1) of the New South Wales crimes Act 1900 (the crimes Act). Mr. Gao sought bail for these two counts of sexual crime conduct.
3. The context of the prosecution is outlined below. The bail applicant is a professional film actor with a normal resident status in China. At the end of March 2018, the bail applicant came to Sydney for the filming of the TV series "Anayan Love" by the protagonist. The filming work was completed on March 26, 2018. On the second night of the filming work, a "Celebration Banquet" was prepared for the Chinese actors and producers. The prosecutor was one of the dockers of the Australian production team in Australia, and in this capacity participated in a celebration to celebrate the successful completion of the production work.
4. The prosecutor spent a lot of time with the TV series`s Chinese producer, Mr. Wang Jing, the co-defendant in the lawsuit. The related celebration took place in a restaurant. Then, a small group of people chose to sing K. after the singing activity, the informant returned to Shangri-La Hotel, the hotel where the two defendants stayed. After most of them separated, the informant and co-defendant, Mr. Wang Jing, returned to the hotel room on the 16th floor alone.
5. At some point, the prosecution said, Mr. Wang called bail applicants, and the latter soon came to Mr. Wang`s room. The informant alleges that after that, defendant and the two men had sex with themselves without her consent and in the presence of both men.
6. The first charge against the bail applicant is the offence of malicious sexual intercourse without consent, which contravenes section 61J of the offences Act and the second one is the malignant sexual intercourse charge of causing actual bodily injury without consent. This is a violation of section 61 JA of the crimes Act. With regard to the content of each offence, the specific pernicious circumstances refer to the crimes allegedly committed in conjunction with Mr. Wang, the co-defendant, in the presence of the co-defendant, Mr. Wang. The maximum penalty for offences prosecuted under the relevant section of section 61JA is life imprisonment, which is why, according to the relevant section of section 16B of the New South Wales bail Act of 2013, the offence against which the offence is committed, The purpose of persuading court and realizing bail can also be achieved through the process of whether or not it is in accordance with the legal principle of (show cause). Section 16B of the bail Act provides that unless the bail applicant is able to express to the court the relevant cause of [why the detention of one`s own conduct is illegitimate], For any such [express] offence, the court must reject its request for bail. If the cause succeeds, the court will have to make a judgment immediately to assess whether there are any concerns about bail, as outlined in section 17 of the bail bill.
7. The relevant articles and jurisprudence of this case provide a clear evaluation basis, that is, the so-called second-order evaluation method, and the two-stage evaluation method should not be confused. At the same time, the court was informed that the assessment of bail-related concerns, as well as the case files, was equally relevant to the legal nature of the assessment.
8. The bail applicant relies on the five items submitted by him to establish the argument that his or her detention is unjustifiable. First, bail applicants note that they are entitled to the so-called presumption of innocence principle, known as the rudimentary principle of the criminal court system. There is no doubt that, despite this fact, there is no exception to this principle, regardless of the size of the case, and therefore, without providing further arguments, its claim that [the detention of his own person is an unjustifiable act], Can`t be built up.
9. Second, the bail applicant commented on the strength of the prosecution`s argument. This judgment will be followed by a further elaboration of this subparagraph.
10. In the third case, it is stated that the bail applicant awaiting trial is in a "protected state" (on protection). There is no evidence to prove the state, and the prosecution has not challenged it. Mr. Korn, a barrister representing the bail applicant, told court that, largely because of his financial and reputation, the bail applicant had been given special attention in prison by (being stood over), so the prison authorities had arranged for the bail applicant to be protected. The living conditions of prisoners in protective conditions are already known as harsh (draconian). Compared to those of the group of prisoners who normally live in prisons. I accept whether the issue of whether the bail applicant is in a state of protection is a priority point, given, inter alia, that if his bail is refused, he may be in need of continued detention for a period of time, It will also be affected.
11. The fourth is a series of financial and energetic measures taken by the wife of the bail applicant to relocate the family to Australia, another issue on which bail applicants rely. Then when I consider the items listed in section 18 of the bail Act, I will return to this point and look at the relevant evidence of the matter.
12. Finally, the bail applicant has indicated that he is willing to be controlled by electronic surveillance equipment if bail is granted. As previously stated, the submission from a bail applicant is intended to show why his or her detention is unjustifiable by combining these matters.
13. Special attention needs to be paid to a paragraph of the prosecution material as to whether the presented material is legal or not. As previously stated, the reason why the argument of the bail applicant needs to reflect whether or not he or she is legally justified is because one of the charges against him or her is one of the charges against him or her. Is the so-called unauthorized and physical injury caused by the malignant sexual intercourse charges. However, on the basis of the content of the fact statement provided by the police, the prosecution needs to find supporting arguments in support of the prosecution of the bail applicant on this charge rather than the prosecution of another co-defendant, and in this regard, The basis of the direction is not clear. The prosecution wants to prosecute the bail applicant on two counts as described above, while the fact statement provided by the police refers to two alleged incidents of sexual behavior, occurring in the bathroom of the co-defendant`s hotel room and when it happened, The informant was on his knees. Of the allegations mentioned in the police fact sheet, there are no allegations of actual bodily injury.
14. The informant gave the police four testimonies. The question of actual physical injury was mentioned in the fourth testimony, in which the informant described the bruising of his legs (as evidenced by photographs) "because Wang and Gao wanted to lift my legs with their hands. And I`ve been struggling so hard to put my legs down. However, in none of the previous three testimonies, it was mentioned that at any time in the hotel room, bail applicants tried to grab the informant`s leg. The testimony also describes the interlude between the informant and the co-defendant, Mr. Wang. Wang allegedly forced the informant to lean back against the bed and also raised her leg, causing bruising in the process. However, if bail applicants are to bear any criminal responsibility for this, the fact that [the bail applicant was still in a hotel room at the time] has to be established after reasonable suspicion of (beyond reasonable doubt) has been excluded. It is unclear whether the alleged content includes this fact. As previously stated, the two charges against bail applicants appear to need to be traced back to earlier events to support the charges.
15. CCTV footage submitted with the bail application showed that the informant and Mr. Wang spent about an hour and 40 minutes together, ranging from 2.27am to 4.10am, while the bail applicant stayed 35 minutes after entering the room. Time span from 2.31am to 3.06am.
16. On the basis of this analysis, the prosecution has the probability of success or the intensity of the case against the bail applicant in relation to the relevant criminal act [whether or not it is necessary to express the legal principle] to prosecute the applicant on bail. It appears to be weak (as opposed to the odds of success in cases against co-defendants). For this reason alone, I think that the argument that a bail applicant is applying for bail needs to be clear as to whether or not it is legal, and I think that the relevant legal provisions have been met only for this offence, so, Once this is met, it is time to consider what concerns there are in bail applications.
17. In considering the intensity of the remaining elements of the prosecution`s prosecution, Mr. Korn, a barrister representing the bail applicant, said frankly that Bail applicants are extremely unlikely to defend themselves on the basis of [not being in the room] at the time of sexual behavior. Evidence that the bail applicant was in the room at the time, and that there was an sexual behavior with the informant at the time, was overwhelming evidence of (overwhelming). As previously said, CCTV footage captures bail applicants first reaching the 16th floor of the hotel and leaving in about half an hour. In addition, judicial evidence also showed that the bail applicant`s DNA, and his semen were found in a blood stain on a quilt in the hotel and on a pillow cover, respectively. As for the blood stains left, the informant`s explanation was that she was in menstruation.
18. So, after the trial stage, the most important question seems to be whether the informant [agrees] to (consent) for sexual behavior. With regard to [concurrence], the prosecution must prove two elements. First, the informant didn`t actually agree to sexual behavior. Second, there must be proof that the bail applicant was informed of the fact that the informant had not consented to sexual behavior, (knowledge). Even in the best case, it is a very complex process to assess a person`s mental state, (state of mind), and whether a person clearly informs the outside world of the relevant mental state. As a result, in considering bail applications, the court usually has to make effective assessments based on limited material, which usually has far-reaching consequences.
The informant has not yet testified in court. The evidence I have so far includes only her testimony and CCTV footage. Although the mother only has such evidence, the content of this decision is not intended in any way to show any doubt about the integrity of the informant in any place.
In some ways, there is sufficient evidence to support the argument that [no consent] was made to proceed with sexual behavior. As previously stated, the informant spent a long period of time with the informant between the night he and the co-defendant came to his hotel room and entering the room. During the night before she returned to her room with the co-defendant, she barely said a few words to the bail applicant. According to the prosecution, at the invitation of the co-defendant, the bail applicant came to the co-defendant`s hotel room and, within minutes of his arrival, after a very brief dialogue with the informant, the bail applicant approached her. Start kissing her mouth to mouth and guide her in the direction of the bed. If there is no (no attraction) call between the two sides in the days leading up to that night, there is no other evidence that the bail applicant was so close to her that she was invited and acquiesced. At the same time, the prosecution believes that, from a fundamental point of view, the informant will have sexual behavior, with a man in the presence of another man, and the likelihood of this happening is very low.
21. The description provided by the informant of the subsequent conduct, if accepted by the court, would indicate that the informant had not [agreed] to conduct the sexual behavior, and that the two defendant should have been informed of the fact that she [did not agree] at the time. However, in the prosecution`s case statement (brief), there are places where, at a formal hearing, there may be clear and clear ways in which the informant is informed, in particular the bail applicant, of the informant`s case. I [did not agree] to carry out the idea of sexual behavior, the color of a layer of scepticism.
22. The bail applicant would insist on the rebuttal that a woman agreed to the probability of sexual behavior, with a man who had just entered the room, even if at first glance it might not be possible. But as long as there is an opportunity to listen to the testimonies of those who allegedly observed [the informant`s "obsession with" (besotted) bail applicants "present during the previous few days of filming during the formal trial of (trial), the case can be explained thoroughly and the case unravelled. There were also questions as to whether the informant had been informed when she returned to her room with the co-defendant and that she would subsequently join the bail applicant. In her third testimony, the informant mentioned that everything in her first testimony was true. However, in the third testimony, the events she described gave the reader the impression that [she only learned of his arrival on bail when he arrived in the room].
[translator: the original text does not mention, here the judge seems to mean that the informant`s testimony is different, the first testimony may have said that he knew Gao wanted to come, the third said that he was Gao came to know the moment.]
23. Both the informant and the bail applicant relied on evidence that CCTV footage of the informant was captured at the karaoke bar, at Shangri-La Hotel, and at the entrance to the elevator on the 16th floor of the hotel. I`ve taken a close look at all the pictures above. Part of the footage supports the prosecution`s claim that she did leave her (pull away from) several times that night when the co-defendant tried to kiss the informant. The rest of the picture, however, seems to show that the informant sat comfortably beside the co-defendant, leaning forward to him, without apparent discomfort due to his presence. The informant`s testimony said that when she was uncomfortable with the co-defendant, she chose to stay with her out of courtesy. It is true that it is important to entertain your colleagues abroad and to be courteous. In these cases, however, there are still opportunities for her to leave without deceit and safety, such as at the end of the song and in the Great Hall of Shangri-La Hotel.
24. But what the above means does not mean that the informant must have expressed his intention to [agree] to anything that follows. As the above only means, things are not what the prosecution says, and in fact she seems to have simply failed to show her reluctance to others in a way that clearly does not leave room for reverie. According to the footage, co-defendants were kissing her when a production team parked outside Shangri-La Hotel to take her home. Later, she waved to another woman waiting for them to leave by the car.
25. How and how the (complaint) is made and what the contents of the relevant incidents are also relevant and worthy of further consideration. When the informant returned home, at least in the middle of the morning, the informant said he had an argument with her husband, who wanted to know where she had been all night. She told her husband that someone wanted to leave her in the hotel and that they tried to kiss her. She didn`t want to tell her husband all the things that had happened, because she was afraid that telling him would make him very upset, (upset him very much). Her husband said that if anything happened, it should be reported to the police. Her husband then telephoned the police, who replied to call the police, but the informant and her husband said they wanted to sleep. After sleeping for hours, the informant, accompanied by her husband, came to the police station.
twenty-six。 The informant claimed that she had not told and told all the police officers on duty because she was worried about the consequences that her husband might have had if she had known all the things that had happened.
twenty-seven。 After the informant cooperated in completing her first transcript during the day of March 27, 2018, she informed the police that she had not decided on what action was to be taken at the time, (undecided). She also told police that the criminal, (offender), would soon leave Sydney and return to China. In her second testimony, she said she had considered various factors and decided to cooperate with the police in the investigation. She said, "both my parents and my husband say that the man who did this to me was a criminal, (criminal)." No matter how famous they are, I think [reporting to the police] is the right thing to do after the discussion. " When the informant cooperated in completing his third testimony on 28 March 2018, the defendants were arrested.
twenty-eight。 From the facts of these narratives, it can be found that, in some ways, The allegation by the prosecution [not only that the informant has not consented, but also that the two accused have expressed knowledge of the informant`s dissenting facts] does have a strong factual basis, but, Other aspects of the case still suggest that the issue of [the informant`s consent or not] and [the knowledge of the two defendants` consent] is bound to be the key to a verbal confrontation at the formal hearing of the (trial). Therefore, the assessment of any bail-related concerns by the (bail concerns) should also be carried out in a formal manner in this context.
twenty-nine。 The prosecution identified two bail-related concerns to be assessed in the case. One concern is that once a bail applicant is released from detention, there is a [risk of not attending] the bail applicant who will not be present in any criminal proceedings against him or her. A second concern is that bail applicants will pose a danger to the safety of the informant or a risk of interference in his or her testimony.
thirty。 In response to the second concern, the factual basis on which the prosecution relies is an incident depicted in paragraph 45 of the informant`s testimony of 28 March 2018, that is, that the informant claims to have received contacts on behalf of the person who appeared on behalf of the bail applicant, She asked the informant if there were other ways to "keep them out of court," or whether she could "consider other ways to solve the problem."
thirty-one。 The prosecution`s defence is that since the contact took place within 24 hours of the commission of the crime, it was an indication of the intention of any defendant immediately to resort to bribery to pressure the informant. I don`t think it`s conservative to infer [this contact] on the initiative of any criminal. At that time, two criminals had just been arrested. If there is an opportunity to contact a friend or co-worker to inspire, it either does not exist at all, and if so, there is limited opportunity. Of course, the community that supports the defendant may well decide to make such contact with the informant without the consent of the defendant.
thirty-two。 The prosecution`s filing includes the so-called "police point of view" (police views). In response to the bail application The "police point of view" paper noted that the victim had received contact from members of the Chinese business and media circles since the case had escalated, and that some of them had even offered her money in exchange for her withdrawal of the charges. This is a worrisome phenomenon for (concerning), but I don`t think it means reaching a conclusion that [any such contacts are motivated by bail applicants]. The "police opinion" letter said that the investigation had been opened and that no such contacts and bail applicants had been found since, and there was any link between the two. If I`m asked to think negatively about bail applicants with this information, the current information can`t convince me to do so, and similarly, As to whether there is such a concern about bail [the release of a bail applicant is about to interfere with the informant`s duties as a witness], the current information also fails to convince me that it exists.
thirty-three。 The main concern for current bail applications is the risk of absconding, (risk of flight). The charges facing the bail applicant are very serious, and there is no doubt that, upon conviction, he will be imprisoned for a very long period of time, (imprisonment). This leads to a very strong motive for absconding. Despite these proceedings, there is no link between the bail applicant and Australia. (no ties with Australia), has the usual status as a Chinese resident and is clearly a well-known actor in China. There is no extradition treaty between Australia and China, so once a bail applicant absconds, he will not be able to be brought back to Australia, facing charges as described above.
thirty-four。 Therefore, in these cases, the risk of absconding is obvious. So the key question in relation to the current bail application is whether this risk is unacceptable to the (whether it is an unacceptable risk). In assessing this concern, the Court should pay attention to the items listed in Section 18 of the bail Act as required. Some of these matters have been referred to in the above judgment and are therefore not addressed in detail. And the rest of the following matters, if necessary, are still to be observed.
thirty-five。 The bail applicant had no previous criminal record in Australia, and there was evidence that he was a good character in China, (person of good character). As mentioned earlier, apart from a series of arrangements made by his wife following the arrest of the bail applicant, there are no remaining ties between him and Australia, which I will later mention. The crime in this case, in a nutshell, is a very serious (plainly serious). I have previously explained my point of view on the strength of the prosecution`s argument. Currently, there is no evidence that bail applicants have any history of domestic violence, history of sexual crime during bail, or any historical record of non-compliance with the conditions set by the court. At the same time, there is no evidence that the bail applicant is connected to any criminal or organization, (no criminal association).
thirty-six。 Finally, it seems to me that there are three primary considerations for the assessment of whether there is a risk of absconding and whether it is unacceptable. There are three primary considerations for the (three primary considerations). The three considerations are the intensity of the prosecution`s argument, the length of time the applicant may need to be detained if bail is denied, and the conditions of bail that may be required if bail is granted. With regard to the consideration of the length of time that a bail applicant may need to be detained if bail is refused, although this consideration is not explicitly presented and discussed in the current bail application, it is based on court`s previous experience. Prior to the formal hearing of the perpetrators of the crimes indicted in this case, they were usually detained for a period of 12 to 18 months, and sometimes longer. The importance of the second consideration is highlighted if the risk assessment for bail applicants released on bail approval includes only one assessment of the risk of absconding.
thirty-seven。 In the end, the success of the bail application, in my view, must be determined in the light of this consideration [whether the bail conditions required by the bail applicant are sufficient to offset the risk of absconding upon release].
The applicant for bail made the following conditions of bail to be released on bail:
First, the bail applicant lives in a residence rented by his wife, excluding any other place;
Second, bail applicants report twice a day to the Chatswood police station;
Third, bail applicants provide a total amount of more than 3 million Australian dollars of guaranteed bail;
Fourth, bail the applicant to hand over his passport, and do not apply for a passport;
(5) the bail applicant shall hand over the existing passport of her daughter and her mother;
Sixthly, the bail applicant uses only one cell phone and provides his cell phone number to the police officer in charge of the investigation;
Seventh, bail applicants are not allowed to close to Sydney International Airport within 100 meters;
In addition to accompanying his wife or emergency medical treatment, bail applicants are prohibited from leaving their residence between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.;
In addition to their own legal representation, bail applicants are prohibited from contacting any prosecution witness, directly or indirectly; and (10) bail applicants are monitored by electronic devices.
thirty-eight。 Among the evidence to bail the applicant is a statement of affidavit from Mr., Phillip Schlutter, managing director of CAGIS International Limited, a company that supplies electronic surveillance technology. Mr. Schlutter was not subpoenaed for cross-examination, and the prosecution did not discuss further the prospect of the use of electronic monitoring equipment.
thirty-nine。 In the Court`s decisions, including my own, concerns about the effectiveness of electronic surveillance equipment are sometimes dealt with by the (reservations). However, in this case, I believe that the use of electronic surveillance equipment will have a very significant effect on mitigating the potential risk of absconding for bail applicants in this case, and this effect is reflected in this case. It is also inseparable from the fact that they need to stay at home and be accompanied by their wives. Bailing out the applicant`s wife, herself a well-acclaimed actress (acclaimed actor), abandoned her acting career in China and moved to Australia, where she accompanied the bail applicant until the proceedings were resolved. She has rented homes in the Chatswood district of Sydney, and has made family relocation arrangements to settle in them, including the mother and daughter of the bailed applicant.
forty。 The evidence against the bail applicant also refers to what I said earlier about the provision of guarantees totalling more than 3 million Australian dollars. One might take a skeptical view of the situation in which rich people pay a lot of money to guarantee it. However, two of the bail guarantees in the case were provided by friends of the bail applicants who had testified in court and were cross-examined by the prosecution. My impression of these witnesses was that they had really taken out a large sum of money from their own funds as a guarantee of bail, and that to date, They also did not receive any promise from bail applicants to reimburse the money. In fact, despite the fact that the bail applicant is a normally Chinese resident, he still has many potential groups in Australia who are willing to give their support, and I agree with this proof. Similarly, I found that during the period when the bail applicant was legally required to respond to the charges charged, his wife, mother and daughter had moved to Australia and made the necessary arrangements for residency.
forty-one。 I would also like to add to the last aspect of the bail applicant`s case, which relates to Mr. Wei`s affidavit. Mr. Wei does not know the bail applicant. He has only testified in court on his experience in the Chinese film and television industry. He claims that in Chinese culture, absconding is always associated with fear of guilt, so once a bail applicant chooses to abscond, the public will regard him as convicted, and from then on he will no longer have any reputation to talk about. In this regard, Mr. Wei also mentioned that once this is the case, the bail applicant will not only continue to work as an actor, but will also be scolded as a result of the widespread abuse he has received. He will no longer have a chance to work in any industry in China.
forty-two。 In response to this testimony, the controlling direction court submitted a very strong responsive argument. The plea notes that if a bail applicant becomes notorious for choosing to return to China so that he doesn`t have to face charges and possible convictions, he is bound to abscond if he weighs the pros and cons of the act. The prosecution`s argument was indeed persuasive. However, with regard to my assessment of the intensity of the prosecution`s argument, and taking into account the support provided to him by the family of the bail applicant, my final conclusion is that the various bail conditions proposed by him do adequately mitigate the risk of absconding.
forty-three。 Therefore, on the basis of the reasons given above, I will grant bail in accordance with the terms of bail proposed by counsel Korn.
(1) A bail applicant shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:
(2) A bail applicant shall appear in court as required.
(3) A bail applicant shall reside in [here entered address] and shall not reside in any other place.
(4) except in case of medical emergency, bail applicants are prohibited from leaving these homes between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
(5) bail applicants are required to report twice a day between 6: 00 a.m. and 8: 00 p.m., to the Chief Police Officer [fill in here].
(6) * if the bail applicant is not present in court in accordance with the contents of his bail, one or more perpetrators accepted by court agree to be forfeited in a total amount in excess of 3 million Australian dollars, The bail guarantee will be used as payment of the above amount, and the amount shall be deposited with the responsible department on bail in the form accepted by court.
(7) A bail applicant shall surrender his passport to the police and shall not apply for a passport or other alternative overseas travel document.
(8) A bail applicant shall, on behalf of his wife, daughter and mother [here record the name], surrender all existing passports and shall not apply for a passport or other alternative overseas travel document.
(9) the wife of the bail applicant is authorized and arranged by the responsible person to obtain her passport for travel, but once the wife returns to Australia, the passport is returned to the person in charge.
(10) A bail applicant may operate only one mobile phone and shall provide the telephone number to the Superintendent within 24 hours of the registration of the number.
(11) bail applicants are prohibited from approaching or within 1000 metres of Sydney International Airport or any other known international departure point.
(12) A bail applicant is prohibited from contacting any prosecution witness known to the bail applicant in any manner other than by a legal representative.
(13) A bail applicant will live during the period of bail in the form of electronic surveillance / tracking, including compliance with the curfew conditions associated with surveillance, And comply with the conditions forbidding access to any international departure point from Australia to less than 1000 meters.
(14) * bail applicants are prohibited from releasing electronic surveillance equipment until it is properly worn.
(15) any change in these conditions of bail is subject to an application to this court. (16) * the conditions of bail with an asterisk are pre-release requirements under section 29 of the 2013 edition of the bail Act. Bail applicants must comply with these conditions before they are released on bail.
