R v Luo

Case [2023] NSWLC 5


Local Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Luo [2023] NSWLC 5
Hearing dates: 2 February 2023
Date of orders: 16 March 2023
Decision date: 16 March 2023
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Shields LCM
Decision:

Further Release Application refused pursuant to s 74(1) of the Bail Act.

Catchwords:

CRIME — Bail — Release Application — Previous release application in the Local Court — Consideration of s 74 Bail Act — Meaning of ‘material information’ — Requirement of s 74 not met — Court declines to hear further release application

Legislation Cited:

Bail Act2013 (NSW), ss 18, 38, 74

Interpretation Act1987 (NSW), s 34

Cases Cited:

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321; [1990] HCA 33

Crane v Director of Public Prosecution (Supreme Court (NSW), Hamill J, 20 October 2021, unrep)

Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Zaiter [2016] NSWCCA 247

R v Fallon (a pseudonym) [2017] NSWSC 1796

R v Mel [2018] NSWSC 1463

Moukhallaletti v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2016] NSWCCA 314

R v Pasikala [2018] NSWSC 1458

Vakuta v Kelly (1988) 13 NSWLR 502 (CA)

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Raymond Jian Wen Luo (Defendant/Applicant)
The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Prosecutor/Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr. K. Ginges with Mr. Bhutani (Defendant/Applicant)

Solicitors:
The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Prosecutor/Respondent)
File Number(s): 2023/00033985
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

  1. The Defendant is before the Court charged with the following matters:

  1. Conspiracy to engage in conduct which concealed or disguised source of money that was the proceeds of crime contrary to section 11.5(1) and 400.3(1A) of the Criminal Code (Cth); and

  2. Dishonestly obtaining by deception a financial advantage contrary to section 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act1900 (NSW).

  1. The charges are being prosecuted by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (‘the Director’) and are currently within the EAGP protocol. The matter was first before the Court on 2 February 2023 when an order was made for the service of a brief by 29 March 2023, and the proceedings are listed for brief status mention on that day. No release application was made on that day.

  2. On 8 February 2023 the Defendant made a Release Application which was refused. A Further Release Application was filed on 20 February 2023 and that application is now before the Court for determination.

Documents

  1. In support of the Further Release Application the Defendant relies on a bundle of documents handed up in court which relevantly includes the following:

  1. An Outline of Submissions by Counsel dated 22 February 2023;

  2. A chronology of alleged facts;

  3. Proposed conditions of bail;

  4. Affidavit of Cynthia Chee Wai Chin sworn on 22 February 2023;

  5. Affidavit of Sunny Li Sheng Yang sworn on 22 February 2023;

  6. Affidavit of Ri Luo sworn on 22 February 2023.

  1. The Director handed up a Statement of Facts prepared by Federal Agent Roussis, which contains 193 paragraphs on 41 pages. The Statement of Facts sets out the Director’s case against the Defendant and the co-accused defendants.

Other Materials

  1. Both the Defendant and…

Continue reading R v Luo

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Luo [2023] NSWLC 5
Case
[2023] NSWLC 5
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Luo involved the respondent, Luo, who applied for release on bail in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Luo had been previously released on bail in the Local Court and now sought further release under section 74 of the Bail Act 1978 (NSW). The legal issues before the court were whether the application was properly made under section 74, and if the requirement of providing material information was satisfied.

The court examined the statutory provisions and case law to determine what constituted 'material information'. It found that Luo had not provided any new or significant information that had not been considered in the previous release decision. The court held that Luo's application did not meet the threshold of 'material information' as required by section 74. As a result, the Supreme Court declined to hear the further release application, adhering to the statutory requirements outlined in the Bail Act.

In reaching this decision, the court underscored the importance of ensuring that bail applications are made appropriately and contain necessary information. The Supreme Court emphasised that applications under section 74 must be substantiated with new information that significantly impacts the considerations for bail. In this instance, the application was deemed inadequate as it did not present any new material information warranting a reconsideration of the bail decision.

The court's final order was to refuse the further release application pursuant to section 74(1) of the Bail Act 1978 (NSW), maintaining the existing bail conditions set by the Local Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Further Release Application refused pursuant to s 74(1) of the Bail Act.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.