Mae Loc Tran, bail application - [2008] VSC 191

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

PRACTICE COURT

No. 1679 of 2008

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by MAE LOC TRAN

---

JUDGE:	HOLLINGWORTH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 May 2008
DATE OF RULING:	23 May 2008
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 191

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – “Show cause” situation - Desirability of applicant undertaking intensive drug addiction treatment – No unacceptable risk – Bail granted.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr T. Strong	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Crown	Mr T. Marsh	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

---

HER HONOUR:

On 11 April 2008, the applicant was charged with a total of 18 offences, including possessing heroin, trafficking heroin, theft and dealing with property the suspected proceeds of crime. On 17 April 2008, the applicant applied for bail at the Melbourne Magistrates' Court. Bail was refused on the basis that she had failed to show cause why her detention was not justified. The learned magistrate did not address the issue of whether there was any relevant unacceptable risk if bail were granted.

On 12 May 2008, the applicant applied for bail to this court. The applicant is in a “show cause” situation under s 4(4) of the Bail Act1977. The court is required to refuse bail unless the applicant shows cause why her detention in custody is not justified. The court is also required to refuse bail if the Crown satisfies it that there is an unacceptable risk that if the applicant was released she would, as the Crown suggests, commit further offences or fail to answer bail. Here there is considerable overlap between the factors which are said to show cause and the issue of unacceptable risk, so it is not necessary for me to determine whether these involve a single question or a two step approach.[1]
[1]As to which, see the discussion by Maxwell P in Re Asmar [2005] VSC 487.

Ms Tran is currently on remand at Dame Phyllis Frost Centre. At the most recent contest mention in the Magistrates' Court on 19 May 2008, the charges were adjourned for further mention on 2 June 2008. Ms Tran has not yet entered a plea. Her solicitor has informed the court that, if bail is not granted, it is likely that at the next mention she will enter a plea of guilty to most, if not all, of the charges. So, unlike many of the bail applications which come before this court, the likely time until trial is not a factor relied upon in support of the application.

One of the factors relevant to a bail application is the strength of the prosecution case. Here, given the statements by the applicant’s solicitor, I proceed on the basis that the prosecution case is a strong one. The police have located multiple items of clothing to a total value of almost $1,500, which Ms…

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 Mae Loc Tran, bail application

Details

AGLC: Mae Loc Tran, bail application [2008] VSC 191
Case: [2008] VSC 191
Decision Date: 23 May 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mae Loc Tran sought bail in a decision by the Queensland Court of Appeal. The applicant faced serious criminal charges and had a history of drug abuse. The case concerned whether Tran should be granted bail despite being in a "show cause" situation due to the severity of the charges against her. The appeal was from a primary decision that denied her bail. The legal issues before the court included whether the applicant's history of drug addiction and the potential risk to the community outweighed the desirability of her undertaking intensive drug addiction treatment and whether there was an unacceptable risk to the community if she were granted bail.

The court examined the factors relevant to the bail decision, including the seriousness of the offence, the circumstances of the offence, the applicant’s history of offending, the applicant’s ties to the community, and the risk to the community if bail were granted. The court considered Tran's expressed desire to undertake intensive drug addiction treatment, which was seen as a mitigating factor. It was found that there was no unacceptable risk to the community if she were granted bail, especially considering her willingness to engage in treatment. The court concluded that the desirability of Tran undergoing treatment outweighed the risk to the community and that the application should succeed.

As a result, the court allowed the appeal and granted bail to Tran. The decision underscored the importance of considering the individual circumstances of the applicant, including their willingness to engage in rehabilitation, when determining the desirability of granting bail. The court also highlighted that the severity of the charges alone should not preclude a bail application if other factors support the grant of bail.

Orders