“Flight risk” denied passport

An Australind man facing a string of historic sex assault charges has had an application for his passport to be returned so he can fly to Thailand to get married refused because he has been labelled a “flight risk”.

As part of his bail conditions, Stephen John Landless, 57, had to surrender his passport to police after he was charged with nine counts of unlawfully and indecently dealing with a child under 14.

The alleged dealings took place in Donnybrook and Bunbury between 1984 and 1985.

Mr Landless appeared on Thursday in Bunbury Magistrates Court where his lawyer Michael Devlin submitted an affidavit on behalf of his client in a bid to have his passport returned.

The court was told Mr Landless was due to travel to Thailand in January to take part in a traditional Buddhist ceremony to marry his partner who is a Thai national.

Mr Devlin said the ceremony had been planned for “months” and Mr Landless intended to return to Australia within 72 hours of the ceremony.

The affidavit also stated 180 guests, including from Australia and France, were due to attend the ceremony and a “considerable” amount of money had been spent on plans.

A crucial point in Magistrate Brian Mahon’s decision on the application was a claim Mr Landless’ visa allowed him to spend only 30 days in Thailand.

But police prosecutor Sgt Karl Rep argued that on advice from a Thailand Consulate official there was no requirement for a visitor to return to their county of origin after a visa had expired and there was no limit to how many 30-day visas a tourist could obtain.

Sgt Rep told Magistrate Mahon that police strongly opposed the application and there was a “real concern” Mr Landless would not return after the ceremony.

Sgt Rep said Mr Landless was a “flight risk” and police “really contend” his passport being returned.

Mr Devlin suggested a $10,000 cash deposit could be paid by Mr Landless to guarantee he would come back to Australia, to which Sgt Rep responded that $100,000 plus a similar surety would be a more appropriate starting point, but he also opposed the option.

In making his decision, Magistrate Mahon said the further explanation on Thailand’s visa process weighed heavily on him and caused him concern.

Magistrate Mahon said the decision was a “difficult call” but he had come to a “finally balanced assessment”.

“I am not minded in the exercise of my discretion to vary bail,” Magistrate Mahon said.

The court was told the matters would be “vigorously and robustly” defended.

A committal mention date is set for January 23.