DPP v Huynh - [2009] VSC 163

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

CRIMINAL LAW DIVISION

No. 1421 of 2009

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

JULIE HUYNH

---

JUDGE:	CUMMINS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 April 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	8 April 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Huynh (bail)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 163

---

Criminal law and procedure – application for bail – charges of intentionally causing serious injury, perjury and perverting the course of justice – applicant 28 year old mother with no prior convictions – victim 3 ½ year old child – extensive delay – considerations applicable – show cause – s 4(4)(c) Bail Act 1977 – application refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr G Georgiou	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Respondent	Ms W Duncan	Office of Public Prosecutions

----

HIS HONOUR:

This is an application for bail by the accused, Julie Huynh. The applicant is charged with intentionally causing serious injury, and in the alternative recklessly causing serious injury, between 1 December 2007 and 10 January 2008 to her three and a half year old daughter, Flora, and with perjury and perverting the course of justice.

The applicant has been in custody since her arrest together with the co-accused, Ms Tai Wu, on 21 January 2008. By application filed 16 March 2009 she applies to this Court for bail. The application is opposed. A committal hearing is due to be held on 1 June 2009.

Mr Georgiou, counsel for the applicant, has most comprehensively and helpfully articulated all that can be said in support of the application for bail. Mr Georgiou has properly focused upon a raft of favourable matters: that the applicant has no prior convictions, has no other matters outstanding, has no criminal history, has no bail breaches and is 28 years of age. Further, that she is in onerous conditions of detention, being in protection, by reason of the nature of the charges. Further, that whilst the committal is scheduled for 1 June 2009 it is likely that a trial would not be held for another year after that and thus the applicant may be held in custody for possibly 28 months, presumed innocent of the charges, until final curial determination. I will return to that matter of delay, which I consider is a significant matter. Finally, Mr Georgiou relied upon the body of evidence in relation to the very good family of the applicant, and in particular the most helpful evidence of the applicant's mother, Ms Kieu, who gave evidence before me, and whose evidence I wholly accept. I accept that the applicant's family is a good family, and her mother in particular impressed me considerably as a responsible and good person.

As to matters of law, Mr Georgiou rightly relied upon the criteria applicable to an application such as this, and the body of established principle as to the significance of lengthy delay. This case certainly qualifies for that criterion of lengthy delay. Mr Georgiou relied…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading DPP v Huynh

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Huynh [2009] VSC 163
Case: [2009] VSC 163
Decision Date: 8 April 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, a 28-year-old mother with no prior criminal record, was charged with intentionally causing serious injury, perjury, and perverting the course of justice. The victim in the case was a 3½-year-old child. The defendant applied for bail, and the matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the defendant met the criteria for bail under the Bail Act 1977. The court had to consider the seriousness of the charges, the risk of flight, the risk of reoffending, and any other relevant factors, including the delay in bringing the charges.

The court assessed the severity of the charges, which included intentional harm to a young child, and noted that these were serious offences with significant potential harm. The court also considered the delay in bringing the charges, which had been extensive. This delay raised concerns about the reliability of the evidence and the fairness of the proceedings. Despite the absence of prior convictions and the defendant’s role as a mother, the court found that the nature of the charges and the potential risk to the community outweighed these factors. The court concluded that the defendant had failed to show a sufficient cause why bail should be granted, particularly given the potential risk of reoffending and the impact of the delay on the proceedings.

The court ultimately decided that the defendant was not eligible for bail. The seriousness of the charges, the potential risk to the community, and the concerns raised by the delay in prosecution were significant factors in this decision. The court was satisfied that the defendant was unlikely to comply with bail conditions, and that granting bail would not be appropriate in the interests of justice. The application for bail was therefore refused.

Orders