If conditions are being put on—we're in the bail process generally—one of the concerns is that conditions lead to administration of justice charges. When we're putting restrictions on people's freedom of action when they are legally innocent people, I think we should be able to justify them.
Reasons need to be given. I think that this shouldn't be seen as too onerous a requirement on the justice who's doing it because, presumably, the law should require them to know why they're doing it.
My concern, from having sat in on many bail cases, is that it seems as if any good-sounding, therapeutically sensible condition that people can think of is put on the person. Why not have this? Why not have that? They're all good-sounding things. There's the standard, almost stereotypic requirement of saying, “He was charged with an offence at the time that he apparently was drunk, so why don't we put an alcohol prohibition?” We know that's not likely to be very useful. Why doesn't he seek treatment? Why doesn't he do various other kinds of things? I think we need to say restrictions should be minimal. They should be put there for a good reason. If we don't have a good reason, we won't be able to provide it. If we do have a good reason, it's not very onerous for the justice.