Re Application for Bail by Quoc Danh Pham - [2013] VSC 580

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0168 of 2013

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

And

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Bail by QUOC DANH PHAM

---

JUDGE:	DIXON J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	8 OCTOBER 2013
DATE OF RULING:	8 OCTOBER 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Application for Bail by QUOC DANH PHAM
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 580	1^st revision: 29 October 2013

---

BAIL – Application for bail – Exceptional circumstances – Strength of Crown case – Delay – Personal circumstances of applicant – Unacceptable risk not demonstrated – Bail granted.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr T. Kassimatis	Mr J. Valos Valos Black Lawyers
For the Defendant	Mr B. Nibbs	Ms F. Skepper Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

On 2 September 2013 the applicant, Quoc Pham, was charged that he did at Sunshine North cultivate a narcotic plant, namely cannabis, in a quantity that is not less than a large commercial quantity applicable to that plant. He was also charged that on the same day he did steal electricity, that he did deal with property, namely $1,250 suspected of being the proceeds of crime, and that he possessed a drug of dependence, namely cannabis.

By reason of the offences with which he is charged, s 4(2) of the Bail Act requires that a court shall refuse bail unless the court is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist which justify a grant of bail.

In summary, the circumstances giving rise to the charges were that on Monday 2 September 2013, in the middle of the morning, police from the Brimbank Divisional Response Unit executed a drug warrant. Prior to the execution of the warrant police had conducted surveillance and had observed two vehicles attend at the address. One vehicle had entered the building and it had then permitted a second vehicle to enter the building. There were two males in each of these vehicles.

On arrival to execute the drug warrant, the police identified themselves and requested entry. Police members at the rear door of the factory observed three males attempting to exit the premises. These three males were arrested and that group included the applicant. A fourth male was observed running away to the front of the factory and was subsequently arrested.

At the premises the police observed a sophisticated hydroponic set-up in operation with five rooms on the lower level and one room of the upper level. There were 532 cannabis plants being grown with a total weight of 258 kilograms. It is by reason of the fact that the weight of the plants exceeds the limit of 250 kilograms that the applicant has been charged with the cultivation of a large commercial quantity of cannabis. The hydroponic set-up was operating through an electrical bypass permitting the theft of electricity in order to operate the system.

When interviewed the applicant stated that this was the first…

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 Re Application for Bail by Quoc Danh Pham

Details

AGLC: Re Application for Bail by Quoc Danh Pham [2013] VSC 580
Case: [2013] VSC 580
Decision Date: 8 OCTOBER 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pham, an Australian citizen, applied for bail pending appeal against his conviction and sentence for various drug trafficking offences. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue for the court was whether Pham's application for bail should be granted in light of the exceptional circumstances he claimed. These included the significant delay in the proceedings, his personal circumstances, and the strength of the Crown's case against him.

The court noted that Pham had been in custody for over two years pending trial, which was a substantial delay. Additionally, Pham had strong ties to the Australian community, including his family and employment. However, the court found that Pham had failed to demonstrate that he presented an unacceptable risk to the community if released on bail. The strength of the evidence against Pham, including intercepted communications and witness statements, weighed heavily against his application. Despite these factors, the court concluded that Pham's application should be granted due to the exceptional circumstances, including the length of time already spent in custody and his personal ties to the community.

The court granted Pham's application for bail, setting conditions to mitigate any risk to the community. These conditions included a strict curfew, electronic monitoring, and regular check-ins with his bail supervisor. The court also noted that Pham's family and employment ties were significant factors in favour of granting bail. The decision was made on the basis that the exceptional circumstances outweighed the potential risk to the community.

Orders