R v Nguyen - [2003] VSC 508

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

PRACTICE COURT

No. 1515 of 2003

THE QUEEN	Plaintiff
v
HAI MINH NGUYEN	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	THE CHIEF JUSTICE
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	5 December 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 December 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Hai Minh Nguyen
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 508

---

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr J. Dowsley	Kay Robertson
For the Defendant	Mr D. Cosgriff	Robert Stary & Associates

(Revised)
(Warren CJ)
HER HONOUR:

The applicant, Hai Minh Nguyen, is presently on remand charged with trafficking a commercial quantity of heroin, possessing heroin and possessing property being the proceeds of crime.

The offences are alleged to have occurred between 7 March and 30 August 2003.

The applicant is aged 22 and is currently located in Port Phillip Prison. He is charged together with nine other co-accused. The allegations underlying the charges are described in a statement by Detective Senior Constable Karen Bramich. As a result of interception by telephone the police ascertained that one Beau Raymond Goddard and others were actively involved in trafficking large quantities of heroin throughout the Metropolitan suburbs of Melbourne.

Goddard was alleged to be engaged in the supply of multiple 350 gram blocks of heroin for between 105,000 and $115,000 each. Following the execution of a number of search warrants by the police on 30 August 2003 the premises of the various co-accused were examined, including that of the applicant. On his premises the police located a small quantity of substance together with aluminium foil and a set of scales with white powder residue on them.

In a record of interview the applicant admitted to throwing a quantity of heroin located at his premises at the time out of the window and to being a heroin user.

Senior Detective Bramich has stated her belief that Goddard was the ringleader of the group selling heroin, but that the applicant was further down the chain. His role was said to be that of obtaining heroin from others higher up the chain and driving the supplier to numerous locations in order to meet customers and sell heroin to them.

In a record of interview the applicant has made some admissions to the police. It is alleged also that the applicant made certain admissions as to his involvement in the course of the telephone interceptions recorded by the police. Three of the co-accused of the applicant have applied for and been granted bail. Importantly, for present purposes the apparent ringleader, Beau Goddard, and two of the other more significant participants have not applied for bail.

There is no issue that a mention date will not occur until late April 2004 in relation to the applicant. Further, there is no issue that the trial date of the applicant is unlikely to occur until the second half of 2005 at the earliest and, possibly, later.

The Crown opposes bail. It is conceded that whilst there will be…

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 R v Nguyen

Details

AGLC: R v Nguyen [2003] VSC 508
Case: [2003] VSC 508
Decision Date: 12 December 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Victoria heard an application for bail made by Hai Minh Nguyen, who is currently on remand charged with trafficking a commercial quantity of heroin, possessing heroin, and possessing property being the proceeds of crime. The charges stem from allegations that Nguyen was involved in the supply of large quantities of heroin in Melbourne, acting as a broker by obtaining heroin from higher-level suppliers and driving suppliers to meet customers to sell the drug. The Crown opposed bail, citing Nguyen's significant role in the trafficking ring and the substantial sums involved. However, the applicant's legal representative argued for bail based on the exceptional circumstances, including Nguyen's personal circumstances, his preparedness to participate in the Bail Advocacy Program, and the significant time he would face in custody if bail were not granted.

The court considered various factors in determining whether to grant bail. Notably, the applicant had prior convictions for trafficking and failing to appear in court, but he had not used drugs since being in custody and had been in a stable relationship. The Bail Advocacy Program was highlighted as a means to support Nguyen's rehabilitation and compliance with bail conditions. The program includes a curfew, regular appointments, and other requirements designed to facilitate rehabilitation and ensure compliance with bail conditions. The court was satisfied that the program would be beneficial and appropriate as a condition of bail.

After weighing the arguments and evidence, the court decided to grant bail to Nguyen, subject to specific conditions. These conditions included residing at a specified address, reporting daily to the police, surrendering any passports, and participating in the Bail Advocacy Program. The court also required a surety of $50,000 to be provided by Nguyen, finding that he had not demonstrated an inability to do so. The court's decision to grant bail was based on the applicant's personal circumstances, his participation in the Bail Advocacy Program, and the significant time he would spend in custody if bail were not granted. The court imposed stringent conditions to ensure compliance and mitigate any risk to the community.

Orders