Ms. Mettam questions the Premier about why electronic monitoring wasn't applied to Kelly North's accused offender after a change of residence, despite the Family Violence Legislation Reform Act. The Premier defends the discretionary power of magistrates in bail decisions.

AnsweredQoN 636Legislative Assembly
Asked
18 November 2025
Portfolio
Premier

QuestionView source ↗

Family and domestic violence—electronic monitoring
636. Ms Libby Mettam to
the Premier:
I have a
supplementary question. If the government's Family Violence Legislation Reform
Act did what the Premier says it should do, why did Kelly North's accused
offender not have electronic monitoring applied when he changed his residence
to Perth last Friday?

AnswerView source ↗

I think I just gave
a very comprehensive account of why it was not a mandatory condition, although
it is true that magistrates have a range of discretion in relation to not only
electronic monitoring but other issues in their decision about whether they
will grant bail. That is the gateway through which they have to travel: Is this
person eligible for bail and, therefore, what are the conditions of bail?
The Speaker: Before I give the member for South Perth
the call, member for Vasse, I would like to remind you that your first question
was quite lengthy and complicated, and your supplementary had a bit of an
introduction to it, which it is not meant to have. Supplementaries are meant to
be short and a question.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more