Nguyen v The King - [2025] VSCA 153

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2025 0078

LUC VAN NGUYEN	Appellant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST, McLEISH and BOYCE JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	26 June 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	26 June 2025
DATE OF REASONS:	3 July 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 153
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	Re Nguyen (Bail Application) [2025] VSC 179 (Gorton J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Bail – Appeal against refusal of bail – Cultivating not less than a commercial quantity of cannabis and associated charges – Judge found exceptional circumstances existed which justified grant of bail – Whether judge erred in finding that there was an unacceptable risk that the appellant would commit a Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 offence if granted bail – Whether judge erred in finding that there was an unacceptable risk that the appellant would fail to answer bail – No error established – Appeal dismissed.

Bail Act 1977, ss 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E.

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; Dale v DPP [2009] VSCA 212; Zayneh v The King [2023] VSCA 311; FT (a pseudonym) v The King [2024] VSCA 90.

---

Counsel
Appellant		Ms C Randazzo SC
Respondent		Mr J McWilliams
Solicitors
Applicant	Giorgianni & Liang Lawyers
Respondent	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
McLEISH JA
BOYCE JA:

Introduction

On 8 April 2025, a judge in the Trial Division refused bail to the appellant, Luc Van Nguyen.[1] By a notice filed on 23 April 2025, the appellant appealed to this Court against that decision.[2]
[1]Re Nguyen (Bail Application) [2025] VSC 179 (‘Reasons’).
[2]The appeal is brought as of right pursuant to s 17(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1986. See Dale v DPP [2009] VSCA 212, [18]–[22] (Maxwell P, Nettle JA and Lasry AJA) (‘Dale’); Zayneh v The King [2023] VSCA 311, [40] (Walker, Taylor and Boyce JJA) (‘Zayneh’); FT (a pseudonym) v The King [2024] VSCA 90, [5] (Beach, McLeish and Niall JJA) (‘FT’).
At the conclusion of oral argument on 26 June 2025, the Court ordered that the appeal be dismissed, indicating that reasons for doing so would subsequently be provided. These are those reasons.

Background

On 1 January 2025, the appellant was charged under the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (‘Drugs Act’) with cultivating not less than a commercial quantity of a narcotic plant, cannabis;[3] trafficking in not less than a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, cannabis;[4] and possessing a drug of dependence, cannabis;[5] and under the Crimes Act 1958 with theft of electricity[6] and damaging property.[7] Subsequently, on 10 January 2025, the appellant was refused bail by the Magistrates’ Court and remanded in custody. The appellant then applied to the Supreme Court for bail. As we have indicated, that application was heard — and refused — by a judge in the Trial Division.
[3]Section 72A.
[4]Section 71AA(1).

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 Nguyen v The King

Details

AGLC: Nguyen v The King [2025] VSCA 153
Case: [2025] VSCA 153
Decision Date: 26 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Nguyen v The King, the appellant, Nguyen, sought to appeal against the refusal of bail by the County Court of Victoria. Nguyen was facing charges related to cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis and associated offences. The County Court had determined that exceptional circumstances existed, justifying the refusal of bail, and that there was an unacceptable risk that Nguyen would commit further offences or fail to answer bail if released.

The legal issues before the court were whether the County Court judge had erred in finding that there was an unacceptable risk that Nguyen would commit a Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 offence if granted bail, and whether the judge had erred in finding that there was an unacceptable risk that Nguyen would fail to answer bail. The appellant argued that the County Court had placed undue weight on the seriousness of the alleged offences and had not properly considered the mitigating factors presented in his favour.

The Victorian Court of Appeal reviewed the County Court’s decision, examining the evidence and submissions made in the lower court. The appellate court found that the County Court judge had carefully considered the relevant statutory criteria and had applied the correct legal principles. The Court of Appeal held that the County Court had not erred in its assessment of the risks posed by Nguyen if released on bail. The appeal was therefore dismissed, upholding the County Court's decision to refuse bail.

The court did not make any further orders beyond dismissing the appeal.

Orders