A Commonwealth prosecutor twice raised fears a former immigration detainee would reoffend but did not oppose bail in the months before the man was accused of a brutal home invasion.
Following revelations Majid Jamshidi Doukoshkan, 43, wasn’t wearing an ankle monitor at the time he was allegedly involved in the violent Perth home robbery on April 16, Immigration Minister Andrew Giles is now probing what led to a government-appointed panel advising he didn’t need to wear one in February.
Immigration Minister Andrew Giles is looking into the Community Protection Board’s advice.Credit: Alex Ellinghausen
According to a Perth magistrates court transcript, the prosecutor said Doukoshkan declined to be interviewed by Australian Federal Police after he was arrested over the curfew breaches on February 19.
“So ultimately, your honour, the prosecution does have concerns about his ability to not commit further offences, particularly in relation to the curfew, having regard to his attitude towards compliance thus far,” the prosecutor said.
“Notwithstanding that, your honour, we do not oppose bail with a personal undertaking being imposed, but want to make it very well known to the accused … further breaches may not have the same response in terms of attitude towards bail.”
Magistrate Tanya Watt told the former detainee he would still be behind bars had the Commonwealth not consented to his release.
The curfew charges against Doukoshkan were withdrawn on March 22 because of a Commonwealth bungle over invalid bridging visas, however, the former detainee – previously jailed over drug offences – allegedly went on to stage the home invasion with two other men.
Doukoshkan also faced court on February 21 and April 10 for state offences of driving without a licence and trespassing, for which he was fined a total of $400 just days before the alleged home invasion.
Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil admitted on Wednesday the federal government was powerless to intervene in state bail matters, repeating that Doukoshkan would still be in custody were it not for the High Court’s landmark ruling in November outlawing indefinite immigration detention.
But Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said the government couldn’t explain why the Commonwealth didn’t oppose bail.
Home invasion victim Ninette Simons.
“The government initially said that there was a bail application that they opposed – that’s not the case. Even the judge said she thought the government was being very ‘generous’ in not opposing bail because if there was an application, she would have opposed bail,” Dutton said on 2GB.
Immigration Minister Andrew Giles phoned a victim of the alleged home invasion, Ninette Simons, on Wednesday to offer his support, but has refused to comment on Doukoshkan’s conditions.
The release of more than 150 people from immigration detention after the High Court decision led to the government rushing through strict laws mandating curfews and electronic monitoring anklets for most former detainees.
On Wednesday, another former detainee – Kimbengere Gosoge – was charged for breaching curfew and monitoring device conditions six times over the past week. Court records show he had also been fined $1500 for trespassing and drug possession on February 9, and bailed to appear in court multiple times in March and April over aggravated burglary charges.
This masthead revealed on Wednesday the Community Protection Board, a government-appointed panel of justice experts, gave advice that led to Doukoshkan’s electronic monitoring condition being removed in March.
Sources with knowledge of the circumstances say Giles will now investigate what information the board had before it that said Doukoshkan did not need to wear the ankle bracelet monitor.
Members of the board contacted by this masthead refused to comment, as did the Australian Border Force, which monitors the former detainees.
West Australian Premier Roger Cook said he was disappointed by that decision and wanted to know the reasons behind it.
“It’s a matter of making sure that tracking system is utilised where it is necessary, and I want the Commonwealth to have a precautionary approach in relation to that. If there’s any doubt in people’s minds whether these people represent a risk to the community, well then obviously we’d like to see electronic monitoring and other supervision methods be an important part of keeping us safe,” he said.
Asked whether the board had failed in this instance, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told ABC radio’s RN Breakfast the board was independent of politicians. “It’s not appropriate for me to comment on individual cases, particularly ones that are before the courts,” he said.
Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.