Re Boo - [2020] VSC 882

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2020 0343

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

-and-

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by WEI YU BOO

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22, 23 & 29 December 2020
DATE OF RULING:	29 December 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Boo
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 882

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Application for bail — Charges of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, possession of substances, materials and equipment for the purpose of manufacturing drug of dependence, and possession of child abuse material — Applicant alleged to be low-level member of drug syndicate — Malaysian citizen on bridging visa — Potential delay of three years — Exceptional circumstances established — Unacceptable risk can be mitigated by conditions — Bail granted with conditions — Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 1B, 3AAA, 4, 4AA, 4A, 4D, 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms F Gerry QC with Mr P Kounnas	Hutchinson Legal
For the Respondent	Mr G Hayward	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

This is an application for bail by Wei Yu Boo (the ‘applicant’).

On 30 June 2020, the applicant was charged with possessing substances, materials and equipment for trafficking in a drug of dependence.[1] He was released on conditional bail by police the same day.
[1]Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic) s 71A (‘Drugs Act’).

Three months later, on 15 September 2020, the applicant was again arrested on further charges of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence (methylamphetamine), possessing child abuse material and contravening a conduct condition of bail.[2] It is the prosecution case that the applicant was involved in a large-scale drug-trafficking syndicate with 15 co-accused.
[2]See ibid s 71; Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 23; Bail Act 1977 (Vic) s 30A (‘Bail Act’).

The applicant was refused bail in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 20 November 2020 on the grounds that there was unacceptable risk that he would fail to surrender into custody in accordance with the conditions of bail. The matter is next listed for committal mention on 24 February 2021 in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court.

The alleged offending

In February 2020, the Victoria Police Clandestine Laboratory Squad commenced an investigation into the activities of a drug trafficking syndicate operating in Victoria and Tasmania.

The evidence obtained indicates that the syndicate had been operating a sophisticated, large-scale enterprise since, at least, early 2018, which involved the importation of more than five tonnes of pre-cursor chemicals, the operation of a number of clandestine laboratories used to manufacture methylamphetamine, and various money laundering activities. It is alleged that the syndicate also began operating poultry farms and rural labour hire businesses to legitimise their income.

A total of 23 search warrants were executed at addresses in Victoria and Tasmania between 10 February and 30…

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 Boo

Details

AGLC: Re Boo [2020] VSC 882
Case: [2020] VSC 882
Decision Date: 29 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re Boo, the applicant, a Malaysian citizen on a bridging visa, sought bail from the County Court of Victoria. The applicant was facing charges of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, possession of substances, materials and equipment for the purpose of manufacturing a drug of dependence, and possession of child abuse material. The prosecution opposed the bail application, citing the serious nature of the charges and the potential delay of three years before the matter could be heard. The court was required to determine whether the applicant was eligible for bail and, if so, what conditions would be appropriate to mitigate the risks associated with granting bail.

The court considered the various factors outlined in the Bail Act 1977 (Vic), including the seriousness of the alleged offences, the risk of reoffending, and the interests of the community. The court found that the applicant was a low-level member of a drug syndicate and that there were exceptional circumstances that warranted the grant of bail. The court determined that the risk of the applicant reoffending could be mitigated by imposing strict bail conditions, including electronic monitoring, a curfew, and a prohibition on the applicant accessing the internet without supervision. The court also considered the potential delay in the matter being heard and found that the applicant's rights to a fair trial would be preserved if bail was granted with conditions.

The court granted the applicant bail with conditions, including electronic monitoring, a curfew, and a prohibition on the applicant accessing the internet without supervision. The court found that the exceptional circumstances established by the applicant outweighed the seriousness of the charges and that the risk of the applicant reoffending could be mitigated by the imposition of strict bail conditions. The court emphasised that the applicant's rights to a fair trial would be preserved if the conditions were adhered to, and that the interests of the community would be protected by the imposition of strict bail conditions.

The court ordered that the applicant be released on bail subject to the conditions outlined above. The applicant was also required to surrender their passport and to report to the bail justice on a regular basis. The court further ordered that the matter be listed for mention in three months to review the applicant's compliance with the bail conditions.

Orders