Re Chew - [2021] VSC 265

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2021 0102

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

-and-

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by SOO PHING CHEW

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	12 May 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	14 May 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Chew
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 265

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Application for bail — Charges of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence and other drug related offending — Potential delay of three years before trial — Motivation to reunite with young children currently in the care of DFFH — Parity — Exceptional circumstances established — Unacceptable risk not demonstrated — Bail granted with conditions — Bail Act 1977 (Vic) s 1B, s 3AAA, s 4AA, s 4A, s 4D, s 4E — Cases cited: Re Ning [2020] VSC 609; Re Boo [2020] VSC 882; Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Abbott 97 A Crim R 19; Bchinnati v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) (No 2) [2017] VSC 620.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr James Anderson	James Dowsley & Associates
For the Respondent	Mr Andrew Sprauge	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

This is an application for bail by Soo Phing Chew (‘the applicant’) in relation to 11 charges brought by Detective Constable Stuart Burnham (‘the informant’), as follows:

(a) trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence (methylamphetamine) (three charges);[1]
[1]Contrary to s 71 of the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic).

(b) possessing substances, materials or equipment for trafficking in a drug of dependence (two charges);[2]
[2]Contrary to s 71A of the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic)

(c) reckless conduct endangering life;[3]
[3]Contrary to s 22 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic)

(d) possessing a drug of dependence (methylamphetamine and cannabis) (two charges);[4]
[4]Contrary to s 73 of the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic).

(e) negligently dealing with the proceeds of crime;[5]

(f) cultivating a narcotic plant;[6] and

(g) possessing a precursor chemical (hydrobromic acid).[7]

[5]Contrary to s 194(4) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic)

[6]Contrary to s 72B of the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic).

[7]Contrary to s 71D of the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic).

All charges relate to the applicant’s alleged involvement in a large-scale drug-trafficking syndicate involving 15 co-accused. She was charged and remanded in custody on 10 February 2020 and has therefore been in custody for 459 days.

On 16 April 2021, the applicant was refused bail in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on the basis that the respondent had apparently established the she posed an unacceptable risk of committing an offence while on bail, interfering with a witness or otherwise obstructing the course of justice in any matter, or failing to surrender into custody in accordance with the conditions of bail. I…

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 Chew

Details

AGLC: Re Chew [2021] VSC 265
Case: [2021] VSC 265
Decision Date: 14 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Chew involves the application for bail by the respondent, Chew, who is facing charges related to the trafficking of a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, along with other drug-related offences. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The key issue before the court was whether the respondent should be granted bail, considering the potential delay of three years before the trial and the respondent’s desire to reunite with his young children who are currently in the care of the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing (DFFH).

The court had to consider several legal principles and statutes, particularly sections 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4A, 4D, and 4E of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic). The respondent argued for bail based on the exceptional circumstances of his motivation to reunite with his children and the substantial delay before the trial. The prosecution, on the other hand, argued against bail, citing the serious nature of the charges and the risk of unacceptable harm to the community. The court carefully weighed these arguments, referencing precedents such as Re Ning, Re Boo, Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Abbott, and Bchinnati v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) (No 2).

After considering the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the court determined that exceptional circumstances were indeed established. The respondent’s motivation to reunite with his children and the significant delay before the trial were compelling factors. However, the court found that the unacceptable risk to the community was not demonstrated. Consequently, the court granted the respondent bail, subject to specific conditions, to ensure that the respondent would appear at the scheduled trial date.

Orders