A second bid for conditional freedom by a "vulnerable" 18-year-old accused of assaulting two young brothers at Westfield Belconnen has stalled, after a court heard concerns about his alleged "obsession" with children.
The man, who cannot be named due to a suppression order, faced the ACT Magistrates Court on Thursday, September 17, and is yet to enter pleas to charges of common assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
He is accused of assaulting the two boys, aged two and four, in an unprovoked attack at Westfield Belconnen on Friday, August 14.
The brothers were walking with their mother on the top floor of the shopping centre about 2pm when the 18-year-old allegedly kicked them from behind.
The toddler suffered a broken nose, while his older brother sustained head injuries.
The alleged attacker was arrested two days later and faced court for the first time on August 17, where his Legal Aid lawyer Gillian Bilton unsuccessfully applied for bail on his behalf.
During that court appearance, she said her client was a "very, very vulnerable" man who has significant mental impairments and his needs would be better met in the community.
Chief Magistrate Louise Taylor refused the first bail application after describing the alleged conduct as "impulsive, dangerous and frightening".
During Thursday's second bail hearing, Ms Bilton conceded this was not "a perfect bail application" as it was "a very difficult situation."
However, she argued that custody was not an appropriate place for a vulnerable man with significant mental impairments.
She told the court her client spends around 23 hours a day in his cell at the Alexander Maconochie Centre, noting that staff were accommodating him with colouring books, puzzles, and an ABC Kids program.
Ms Bilton said that under the proposed bail plan, the man would return home to his parents, stay five metres away from children, and only go out if accompanied by two people, including support workers.
She said these conditions would be temporary until an appropriate care plan was developed.
"Unfortunately, the disability system is not something that moves quickly," Ms Bilton said.
However, special magistrate Sean Richter immediately raised concerns about a support worker's capacity to restrain a client if required, saying that responsibility would have to fall on the man's parents.
"This is a hard case, isn't it?" he said. "This is a person with extreme disabilities."
The magistrate also questioned whether the 18-year-old could comprehend the requirement to stay away from children.
"Is your client going to understand what not going within five metres of any children means?" he asked Ms Bilton.
She confirmed he would, telling the court he had previously demonstrated an understanding of the condition.
"He knows that he is not allowed to go near children and he knows that he is not allowed to go near schools," she said.
Prosecutor James Melloy opposed the man's release, questioning whether conditions written on paper could work when his history has shown he is "unable to control himself."
The court heard the 18-year-old had recorded more than 40 police interactions in about a year.
Mr Melloy outlined three core concerns based on his history with police, including his alleged tendency to play in traffic and damage vehicles, and to abscond from care facilities.
"Our third and greatest concern is his obsession with young children and his tendency to approach and assault them," Mr Melloy said.
He also highlighted multiple instances with children, including one where the 18-year-old allegedly grabbed a three-year-old by his jumper hood and attempted to drag him toward a car park.
"That occurred despite being in the company of his parents," he said.
"At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, this is the type of behaviour that makes members of the community afraid to leave their house.
"Parents, children and infants should be entitled to leave their house without the fear of being assaulted, and they're not safe if this young person is in the community based on his current behaviour."
Mr Melloy said there was "no way" the court could be satisfied that a condition releasing him into the care of his parents could sufficiently control his behaviour.
"We are now at the stage where the protection of the community has to be prioritised."
He also said there was no evidence the 18-year-old's needs were not being appropriately met in custody.
The prosecutor argued that until a structured, restricted-practice care plan could be put in place, custody remained the only appropriate environment capable of balancing the man's complex needs with community protection.
Mr Richter said he had "grave concerns" about whether the proposed home arrangements could work.
He ultimately adjourned the application for one week to hear directly from the man's parents on how they plan to maintain "effective house arrest."
