Re Cho
[2025] VSC 523
•22 August 2025
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2025 0180
| IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) |
| AND |
| IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by Ryan Cho |
---
JUDGE: | Elliott J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATES OF HEARINGS: | 22 August 2025 |
DATE OF RULING: | 22 August 2025 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Re Cho |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VSC 523 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Prima facie entitlement to bail – Personal circumstances – Whether unacceptable risk – Nature and seriousness of alleged offending – Strength of prosecution case – Extent of compliance with earlier grant of bail – Availability of stable accommodation – Proposed therapeutic treatment – Risk not shown to be unacceptable – Bail granted – Bail Act 1977 (Vic), ss 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4D, 4E, 5AAA – Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), ss 21A, 53R, 465AAA – Surveillance Devices Act 1999 (Vic), s 7.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the applicant | J McMahon SC with C O’Bryan | Balot Reilly Criminal Lawyers |
| For the respondent | R Hammill | Victoria Police |
HIS HONOUR:
A. Introduction
A.1 Matters leading up to application for bail filed on 12 August 2025
On 10 July 2025, Victoria Police executed an arrest warrant at the residential address of the applicant, Ryan Cho (“Cho”). On the same day, Cho was arrested, interviewed and charged with:
(1)Stalking, contrary to section 21A(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), alleged to have been committed between 3 July 2025 and 7 July 2025.
(2)Knowingly installing an optical surveillance device to record a private activity without consent, contrary to section 7(1) of the Surveillance Devices Act 1999 (Vic), alleged to have been committed between 3 July 2025 and 7 July 2025.
(Together, “the 10 July Charges”.)
Also on 10 July 2025, Cho was granted bail by Victoria Police on certain conditions to appear at the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria at Heidelberg on 29 August 2025. The only conditions imposed at the time were for Cho to report to Heidelberg police station on Fridays, to reside at a specified address in Heidelberg West, not to attend any international point of departure and to surrender his passport. There are no reported breaches of those conditions while Cho was released on bail between 10 July 2025 and 25 July 2025. On 11 July 2025, Cho surrendered his passport.
Between 10 July 2025 and 25 July 2025, Victoria Police continued their investigation into Cho’s conduct. That investigation included forensic analysis of electronic devices that had been seized at Cho’s residence on 10 July 2025,[1] which uncovered conduct alleged to be far greater in potential volume, scope and severity than that which was the subject of the 10 July Charges.
[1]See par 27 below.
On 25 July 2025, Cho was arrested, interviewed and charged with:
(1)4 counts of intentionally recording intimate images of 4 separate victims, contrary to section 53R of the Crimes Act, each alleged to have been committed on 7 July 2025.
(2)Knowingly installing an optical surveillance device to record a private activity without consent, contrary to section 7(1) of the Surveillance Devices Act, alleged to have been committed on 7 July 2025.
(3)Failing to comply with a direction to provide a passcode to electronic devices after being requested to do so by police, contrary to section 465AAA(4) of the Crimes Act, alleged to have been committed on 10 July 2025.
(Together, “the 25 July Charges”.)
Following his arrest on 25 July 2025, Cho filed an application for bail in the Magistrates’ Court, nominating an address in suburban Melbourne as a proposed residence that he would share with his parents. That same day, Cho’s application for bail was refused on the basis that Cho posed an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of any person, of interfering with a witness or of otherwise obstructing the course of justice in any matter. Cho’s bail was also revoked in relation to the 10 July Charges, and he was remanded in custody to appear at the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria at Melbourne on 29 August 2025.
On 12 August 2025, Cho filed a notice of intention to make an application for bail in this court in respect of the 10 July Charges and the 25 July Charges.
There is a mention listed in respect of the 10 July Charges in the Magistrates’ Court on 29 August 2025, and a committal mention is listed in respect of the 25 July Charges in the Magistrates’ Court on 14 November 2025.
Presently, Cho has spent 4 weeks in custody.
A.2 Prosecution materials filed prior to hearing
The prosecution filed an affidavit indicating that:
(1)The 2 charges the subject of the 10 July Charges will be withdrawn at their first mention on 29 August 2025, given those charges have been subsumed by the matter relating to the 25 July Charges.
(2)On 20 August 2025, a further 127 charges were filed relating to the 25 July Charges, comprising 120 charges of intentionally recording intimate images, contrary to section 53R of the Crimes Act, 6 charges of installing an optical surveillance device to record a private activity without consent, contrary to section 7(1) of the Surveillance Devices Act,[2] and 1 charge of stalking, contrary to section s 21A(1) of the Crimes Act.
(3)It is likely that there will be further charges filed in respect of other identified subjects of intimate images. Further, while many intimate images relate to unidentified persons, it is alleged more are being identified as the investigation progresses.
(4)Informant Baykur estimates that there will be around 500 charges filed in the brief of evidence due on 1 October 2025.
[2]A summary of these additional charges, filed by the prosecution in response to this application for bail, is annexed to these reasons (redacting the complainants’ names) as “Annexure A”.
A.3 Application heard on 22 August 2025
For the reasons that follow, bail will be granted.
B. Background
B.1 Alleged offending
The following account is based on the prosecution case and comprise allegations only.
Given the high degree of connection between them, it is convenient to provide a single, overarching summary of the alleged conduct underpinning both the 10 July Charges and the 25 July Charges.
On 23 June 2025, an employee of Austin Health (“Witness 17”) allegedly observed Cho leaning on a door to a staff toilet in a corridor of the emergency department staff area. Witness 17 then saw Cho lock the door to that toilet with one hand behind his back whilst he had a phone in his other hand. Although Witness 17 did not know who Cho was at the time, Witness 17 reported these observations to another employee of Austin Health (“Witness 1”) and later identified Cho to Witness 1 while Cho was in the emergency department staff seminar room.
It is alleged that Witness 17 reported these observations to Witness 1 because, at the time, there had been recent issues with staff toilets in the corridor of the emergency department staff area. These issues included removal of toilet flush buttons, toilets being blocked with paper towels, water flow to the toilet cistern being turned off and the toilets being locked from outside when they were empty.[3] Another employee of Austin Health had allegedly put in several work orders for the repair of the toilets.
[3]The prosecution’s position is that Cho was responsible for these issues, which were allegedly a means he used to divert potential victims away from other toilets and into the spaces where he had set up and concealed an electronic recording device.
After Witness 17 had identified the person involved to Witness 1 in general terms and informed Witness 1 of the incident, it is alleged that Witness 1 approached Cho in an attempt to identify who he was. Cho allegedly identified himself by his first name, “Ryan”, and indicated that he was a doctor working at Austin Health.
Witness 1 contacted a workforce manager at Austin Health (“Witness 12”) in an attempt to further identify Cho. Witness 12 indicated that Cho was not rostered to work until night shift that day, and had no reason to be at the hospital. When Witness 1 queried Cho as to why he was at the hospital outside of his rostered hours, Cho allegedly indicated he was studying. Witness 1 discussed Cho further with Witness 12. Witness 12 allegedly later had a conversation with Cho and advised him not to attend the hospital unless required for work.
On 1 July 2025, it is alleged that Cho was again observed loitering with a backpack in the staff emergency department area by another employee of Austin Health. This witness allegedly took a photograph of Cho on that occasion.
On 3 July 2025, between approximately 2.30pm and 4.00pm, a nurse at the Austin Hospital was using a unisex staff toilet, accessible by staff swipe card only, when she allegedly located a mesh bag with perforations in it hanging on a plastic removable utility hook facing the toilet. It is alleged the bag contained clothing and a mobile phone in flight mode, attached to a power bank. The phone was allegedly recording at the time it was found.
The nurse reported the bag to the nurse in charge. The bag was removed from the toilet and stored at a nearby nurses’ station, however the bag and phone were later unable to be located.
This incident was reported to Austin Hospital’s management by several Austin Hospital staff members, causing an internal investigation to be conducted by Austin Hospital’s management and security. It is alleged that this investigation indicated that Cho’s staff swipe card had been extensively used to access areas of the hospital that Cho’s work duties would not require him to frequent.
On 7 July 2025, Austin Hospital’s security team leader (“Witness 16”) conducted a search of the hospital’s staff toilets. During that search, whilst in the emergency department staff locker room toilet, and accompanied by Witness 12, Witness 16 located what appeared to be the same bag that had been located by a nurse on 3 July 2025. It is alleged that a Google Android phone was found inside the bag.
Following this discovery, Austin Hospital management reported the incidents outlined above to Victoria Police. Two members of Victoria Police arrived at the hospital at approximately 12.30pm on 7 July 2025 to meet with the hospital’s management, and commenced an investigation.
After arriving at the hospital, Victoria Police members seized the items that had been found, guarded the emergency department staff locker room toilet in which the items were found, and photographed the scene.
It is alleged that body worn camera footage captures Cho approaching a member of Victoria Police while the officer was guarding the relevant toilet and enquiring about access to that toilet. The officer refused Cho access.
At approximately 1.00pm on 7 July 2025, members of Victoria Police’s Sexual Offences and Child Abuse Investigation Team, including Informant Baykur, arrived at Austin Hospital to take carriage of the investigation, including questioning of Austin Hospital staff.
On the evening of 7 July 2025 and on 9 July 2025, it is alleged that Cho contacted another unaccredited general surgery registrar at Austin Health (“Witness 14”), with whom Cho had worked. This was allegedly done via WhatsApp messaging and phone calls to ask Witness 14 to check the emergency department locker room toilets for belongings Cho had left behind. Witness 14 notified Victoria Police of these contacts made by Cho.
On 10 July 2025, whilst executing a search warrant at Cho’s residential address, Victoria Police located a Samsung mobile phone, an ACER laptop, a Seagate hard drive, several white mesh storage bags, packets of white removeable hooks and a Google mobile phone.
It is alleged that the mesh bags and removable hooks seized by Victoria Police at Cho’s residence share a likeness with the bags and hooks allegedly found at the Austin Hospital in the incidents referred to above. It is also alleged that Victoria Police directed Cho to provide a passcode to the electronic devices found at his residence, and that Cho did not comply with that direction.[4]
[4]See the charge at par 4(3) above.
Austin Hospital management allegedly informed Victoria Police that the hospital had not officially installed any white removable hooks in the hospital’s toilets and bathrooms. The hospital’s own investigations indicated that toilets and bathrooms in other areas of the hospital contained such hooks.
On 11 July 2025, Victoria Police attended the Austin Hospital again to investigate what other toilets and bathrooms may be impacted by the alleged conduct, by searching those areas for white removable hooks. Victoria Police photographed each toilet and bathroom found to contain white removable hooks.
On 14 July 2025, Informant Baykur transported the electronic devices seized at Cho’s residence to Victoria Police’s Cyber Crime Division for analysis. On 22 July 2025, the ACER laptop, Seagate hard drive and Google mobile phone were returned to investigators.
As well as a video recording application and a video editing application, it is alleged that the Google mobile phone contained video footage of:
(1)Cho setting up the phone.[5]
(2)The genital or anal regions, or both, of each of the 4 alleged victims.[6]
(3)Witness 16 locating the bag and the phone.
[5]See the charge at par 4(2) above.
[6]See the charges at par 4(1) above. Three of the alleged victims are female and 1 alleged victim is male. There was also allegedly footage of a fifth person, a male, that does not capture an intimate area. Three out of these 5 persons have been identified by their name tags and Victoria Police’s enquiries.
It is alleged that the Seagate hard drive contains 10,374 files of videos and images. Victoria Police have made an initial assessment that, of these videos and images, approximately 4,500 are videos that capture an intimate area of at least 460 alleged female victims using toilets or showers.
While the majority of victims are alleged to be females working in the medical facilities that Cho has worked in since 2021, it is alleged that there are also files that appear to depict females using toilets and showers in a residential setting.
The photos and videos taken in residential settings are alleged to include intimate images of 2 of Cho’s female former housemates. They also allegedly include images of one of the housemate’s friends, recorded while those friends were visiting the residence that the housemate shared with Cho.
Without detailing its complete structure, it is also alleged that the files on the hard drive are organised into folders and subfolders that have been named by reference to the setting in which the video or image was captured (for example, medical or residential), the names of medical facilities, ward designations within medical facilities, names of victims and what appear to be tiered designations of particular images and videos (that is, Tier 1 and Tier 2).[7]
[7]Some of these allegations rely upon inferences into the naming conventions that allegedly appear in the hard drive’s folder and sub-folder structure.
Investigators have also located an alleged planning document from the ACER laptop, which contains the following details in respect of a medical facility or facilities that Cho worked at:
(1)Wards and names of alleged victims.
(2)Shift start and finish times for doctors and nurses.
(3)Times that toilets are cleaned.
(4)Notes on locking toilets when cleaners are not active, and to only lock toilets once they have been cleaned.
(5)Where a recording device has been discovered and taken down.
(6)Notes on using a reduced size of bag.
(7)Changing the type of hook for stability.
(8)Checking the temperature of the phone.
(9)Notes on the types of locks and hinge swing on doors for placement of a recording device.
B.2 Cho’s personal circumstances
Cho is a 28 year old man of Malaysian descent. He is a citizen of Singapore, which is where his family ordinarily resides.[8] Cho became a permanent resident of Australia on 7 April 2025, and has resided here since around February 2018.
[8]The bail conditions proposed by Cho indicate that Cho’s parents would reside at the proposed bail address in Melbourne with Cho.
Cho studied a Bachelor of Medical Science and Doctor of Medicine at Monash University between 2018 and 2022. He became a medical practitioner registered with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency in 2023.
At the time of the alleged conduct the subject of the charges, he had been an unaccredited general surgery registrar at Austin Health since February of this year. He was stood down from that role on 8 July 2025, pending an investigation by Austin Health into the subject matter of the charges. His registration with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency was also suspended on 8 July 2025.
B.3 Proposed therapeutic treatment
While on bail in respect of the 10 July Charges, Cho engaged with Transforming Justice Australia and their REVIVE program. The program is a 10 week program for men who have caused sexual harm or who are at risk of causing sexual harm. It is focussed on the prevention of sexual harm and supporting people to make healthy sexual choices and recognise unhelpful thinking and behavioural patterns.
Also while on bail, Cho consulted with 2 providers of therapeutic treatment; a treating psychologist and a treating sex therapist.
Cho’s father, Wilson Cho, gave evidence on this application. Both of Cho’s parents are very supportive of him.
While specific details were not given, Cho’s parents are of substantial means and they are able to support Cho financially to the extent necessary in the ensuing months and years. Further, although they ordinarily reside in Singapore, they have current visas that expire in November this year and which, on the uncontested evidence, are likely to be renewable for the foreseeable future. They have committed that one or both of them will remain in Melbourne for as long as the proceedings continue in order to support their son. Furthermore, Cho’s father intends to spend time with his son sharing Cho’s favourite pastime of going on long walks (subject to compliance with conditions of Cho’s bail).[9]
[9]To accommodate this, the conditions of bail will allow the informant to relax reporting requirements.
As part of the support being offered, Cho’s father elaborated on arrangements that have been made with respect to providing accommodation for Cho. The evidence establishes that Cho will likely have stable accommodation available to him if bail were granted. Indeed, Cho’s father is already residing at the accommodation, which will be made available to Cho if bail is granted.
Further, Cho’s father gave a series of assurances to the court while giving evidence, to the effect that both he and his wife would report any breach of any condition of bail (or any conduct which indicated that a breach was likely to occur) to the informant before contacting any other person. The assurances included providing transport and accompanying Cho to attend any professional services he is required to attend as part of any conditions of bail.
In addition, Cho’s father indicated that $50,000 is available as a bail undertaking, as foreshadowed.
C. Legal principles
In interpreting and applying the Bail Act 1977 (Vic), the court is required to take into account the guiding principles set out in section 1B. These include the competing considerations of maximising the safety of the community, and the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty.[10]
[10]Re Ceylan [2018] VSC 361, [31]-[32] (Beach JA).
It was common ground between the parties that Cho is prima facie entitled to bail under the Bail Act.[11] Accordingly, Cho is not required to show cause as to why his continued detention is no longer justified.[12]
[11]As he is not charged with an offence contained in either Sch 1 or Sch 2 (with a proviso referred to) of the Bail Act and his application is therefore not subject to a 2-step test: see Bail Act, s 4AA. The proviso is that s 21A of the Crimes Act is referred to, but other criteria must also apply for Sch 2 to apply to such a charge and they are not applicable to the facts of this case.
[12]Re application for bail by ZS [2018] VSC 153, [14] (Champion J).
Despite that entitlement, the court must refuse bail if the prosecution discharges the burden of establishing that if bail were granted the applicant would present an unacceptable risk of, relevantly:
(1)Committing a Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 offence.
(2)Endangering the safety or welfare of any person, whether by committing an offence that has that effect or by any other means.
(3)Interfering with a witness or otherwise obstructing the course of justice.
(4)Failing to surrender into custody in accordance with the applicant’s bail undertaking.[13]
[13]Bail Act, ss 4D(b), 4E(1); Re AH [2021] VSC 426, [21] (Jane Dixon J); Re application for bail by ZS [2018] VSC 153, [14].
In considering whether an applicant poses an unacceptable risk, the court must take into account the surrounding circumstances.[14] Such surrounding circumstances include, but are not limited to, the following matters listed in section 3AAA(1) of the Bail Act:
[14]Bail Act, s 4E(3)(a).
(aa)whether, if the accused were found guilty of the offence with which the accused is charged, it is likely—
(i) that the accused would be sentenced to a term of imprisonment; and
(ii)if so, that the time the accused would spend remanded in custody if bail is refused would exceed that term of imprisonment.
(a)the nature and seriousness of the alleged offending, including whether it is a serious example of the offence;
(b) the strength of the prosecution case;
(c) the accused’s criminal history;
(d)the extent to which the accused has complied with the conditions of any earlier grant of bail;
…
(g)the accused’s personal circumstances, associations, home environment and background;
…
(i) the availability of treatment or bail support services;
…
(j)any known view or likely view of an alleged victim of the offending on the grant of bail, the amount of bail or the conditions of bail;
(k)the length of time the accused is likely to spend in custody if bail is refused;
(l) the likely sentence to be imposed should the accused be found guilty of the offence with which the accused is charged;
…
In assessing whether a risk of the kind contemplated under section 4E(1) of the Bail Act is an unacceptable risk, the court must consider the likelihood of it occurring,[15] the magnitude of the consequences if the risk were to give rise to the relevant conduct,[16] and whether the risk posed may be mitigated by any conditions of bail.[17]
[15]Re Boland [2024] VSC 85, [53] (Fox J).
[16]Ibid.
[17]Bail Act, s 4E(3)(b).
Further, section 5AAA(1) of the Bail Act requires the court, when considering the release of an applicant on bail, to impose any conditions it considers will reduce any risk to an acceptable level. A non-exhaustive list of possible conditions is outlined under section 5AAA(4), which relevantly includes reporting to a police station and residing at a particular address.[18] However, those conditions must be no more onerous than is required to reduce the likelihood of the risk in question,[19] and must be reasonable, having regard to the nature of the alleged offending and the circumstances of the applicant.[20]
[18]Ibid, s 5AAA(4)(b).
[19]Insofar as the risk in question is the risk of the applicant endangering the safety or welfare of any other person or of the applicant failing to surrender into custody in accordance with the bail undertaking; ibid, s 5AAA(2)(a).
[20]Ibid, s 5AAA(2)(b).
The court must refuse bail if satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk.[21] The notion of unacceptable risk does not concern merely any risk of offending. Rather, the question is whether such a risk is unacceptable.[22]
D. Submissions
[21]Ibid, s 4E(1).
[22]Hall v Pangemanan [2018] VSC 533, [25] (Croucher J).
D.1 Cho’s submissions
It was submitted that Cho did not pose an unacceptable risk due to the combined weight of several factors, including:
(1)The length of time Cho is likely to spend in custody if bail is refused. It was submitted that Cho intends to contest the charges, and there would likely be delay in the prosecution such that it was unlikely that a trial would occur before a date in 2026, such delay being contributed to by:
(a)The prosecution’s intention to rely upon digital analysis of Cho’s electronic devices.
(b)There being a large volume of digital material that the prosecution will seek to rely upon, with an indication that further charges against Cho will be laid.
It was also submitted that it was too early to say whether or not there would be a trial.
(2)The availability of treatment services. The fact that Cho had engaged with treatment services whilst on bail and prior to his arrest and remand on 25 July 2025 was relied upon.[23] Cho had a desire to continue with those services. However, there are difficulties in providing treatment services to Cho whilst he is in custody. Since being on remand, Cho has been held in solitary confinement and only allowed out of his cell for one hour a day. Cho’s solicitor has already been placed in funds for the fees of a clinical and forensic psychologist.
(3)Cho has no prior criminal convictions.
(4)The extent to which the accused has complied with the conditions of any earlier grant of bail. It was submitted that for the 15 days Cho was on bail he complied with his bail conditions.
(5)His personal circumstances, associations, home environment and background. It was submitted that Cho has substantial ties to Australia and to Victoria, having recently obtained permanent residency. It was also submitted that Cho’s parents are supportive of his application for bail, and have secured stable accommodation in the form of a 3-bedroom rental property in Melbourne for Cho to share exclusively with his parents. They have recently moved from Singapore to Australia to support him. A bond and the first 5 months’ rent has already been paid by Cho’s father. As already stated, Cho’s parents attended court today.
(6)It was submitted that the risk of Cho reoffending has been substantially ameliorated, as Cho’s registration as a medical practitioner has been suspended and he has been stood down from his employment at the Austin Hospital.
(7)While it was acknowledged that the alleged offending was plainly serious and a grave invasion of privacy, it was submitted the alleged conduct was not done for the purpose of exerting coercive control. It was noted there is no allegation Cho has disseminated any of the images and that they appear to have been stored on a private computer and a private hard drive.
(8)In relation to the strength of the prosecution case, it was submitted the criminal process is in its early stages and neither the defence nor the court is in any position to make any meaningful assessment of the likelihood or extent of any guilty finding. By reference to the elements of section 53R(1) of the Crimes Act,[24] it was noted that the only images provided by the prosecution to the defence to date are of the clothed torsos of adult women. While it was accepted there is a strong prosecution case with respect to at least some of the charges, it was submitted this has not been established more generally.
(9)It was contended that it must follow from the previous point that it was also not possible for the court to make a meaningful assessment of any term of imprisonment Cho may face if ultimately convicted. However, it was submitted that if bail was refused and the matter proceeds to trial Cho will be remanded for a substantial period of time, possibly years. In that regard, the prosecution has indicated further charges will be laid and that it is likely that by 1 October 2025 Cho will be facing around 500 charges. On this basis, it was submitted it was highly likely the committal mention for 14 November 2025 will need to be adjourned. Regardless, it was submitted that a committal hearing would not take place until 2026.
(10)The fact that Cho has been detained in solitary confinement was again referred to in submitting that Cho has received a salutary lesson, this being the first time he has ever been held in custody. It was contended this provided a strong deterrent for any further offending.
(11)Given the number of witnesses to be called, it was submitted (and not contested) that there was no realistic prospect of Cho interfering with the due administration and course of justice.
[23]See pars 41-42 above.
[24]Section 53R(1) provides that a person (“A”) commits an offence if they intentionally produce an intimate image depicting another person (“B”) where A knows the image is, or probably is, an intimate image, and the production of that intimate image is contrary to community standards of acceptable conduct. An “intimate image” for the purpose of this section means an image depicting a person engaged in sexual activity, or a person in a manner or context that is sexual, or the genital or anal region of a person (whether bare or covered by underwear) or, if the person is female or a transgender or intersex person identifying as female, the breasts of the person.
It was also submitted that it would be possible to sufficiently mitigate any risk associated with a grant of bail. A bail guarantee has been offered by Cho’s father in the amount of $50,000, or more as the court deems appropriate. Any risk posed was contended to be capable of mitigation by the imposition of any bail conditions the court deems appropriate, including that Cho:
(1)Report to the officer in charge of a police station every Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
(2)Reside at [address].
(3)Surrender valid passports or any other valid travel documents held within 24 hours of release to the informant and not apply for any other.
(4)Not attend any points of international departure.
(5)Not leave the State of Victoria.
(6)Not contact witnesses for the prosecution other than the informant.
(7)Not possess a mobile phone with a camera or any video recording device or camera.
(8)Continue to engage with treatment and counselling by the sex therapist already engaged, and to obey her lawful directions.
(9)Continue to engage with treatment and counselling by the psychologist already engaged, and to obey his lawful directions.
The submissions made by Cho must be understood in light of some concessions made on his behalf by senior counsel. For the purposes of this application, it was accepted that there is a significant volume of material that is invasive of privacy that shows areas of the body in toilet procedures. It was also accepted that it was unlikely that much of the evidence of the alleged victims would be the subject of challenge.
D.2 Prosecution’s submissions
In turn, the prosecution submitted that Cho presented an unacceptable risk of endangering the safety or welfare of any other person. In this regard, reference was made to:
(1)The nature and seriousness of the alleged offending, including whether it is a serious example of the offences. It was submitted that the allegations against Cho are of a serious nature, as victims of Cho’s offending include a large number of staff at the Austin Hospital, and that public knowledge of the scale of his offending over the last 4 years will have a significant impact on the community. It was submitted Cho’s alleged conduct has to have created an atmosphere of insecurity and angst among hundreds of people.
(2)The strength of the prosecution case. It was submitted that the prosecution case is overwhelmingly strong, and that it is difficult to conceive of a viable defence, by reference to a variety of evidence proposed to be adduced by the prosecution at trial.
(3)Whether, if the applicant were found guilty of the offence with which he is charged, it is likely that he would be sentenced to a term of imprisonment. It was submitted that it is highly likely that Cho will serve a term of imprisonment if convicted, and that the likely term of imprisonment will exceed any period of delay in reaching trial.
(4)The risk of failing to surrender into custody in accordance with the conditions of bail. It was submitted that Cho poses a risk of absconding from Australia, given he does not have family based in Australia and is not a citizen of Australia. It was submitted that his inability to study or work here, in light of the suspension of his registration as a medical practitioner and being stood down at Austin Hospital, has loosened any ties to Victoria that he may have formerly had. It was also contended that Cho has ample incentive to flee, in light of the strength of the prosecution case and likely sentence, as well as the mandatory cancellation of his permanent residency if he were to receive a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment or more.
(5)The extent to which conditions of bail could ameliorate any risk posed whilst on bail. It was submitted that no condition of bail will reduce the risk of repeat offending by Cho, as his level and pattern of offending indicates that he is calculated and obsessed.
(6)The likelihood of offending whilst on bail. It was submitted that Cho will always have access to electronic devices, and that he has previously victimised female housemates. Reference was made to the evidence that, while on bail in respect of the 10 July Charges, Cho contacted a former female housemate and “presumably” sought to stay with her.[25] This former housemate was allegedly the subject of 146 covertly recorded intimate videos from when they lived together. In relation to the community generally, it was suggested that evidence obtained by the prosecution to date suggests that Cho may have also targeted short-stay rental properties, indicating his opportunism. Further, it was submitted that Cho would have access to numerous toilets in the community if he were to be granted bail, and that restricting digital devices as a condition of bail would be onerous and complicated in terms of compliance management.
(7)The availability of therapeutic treatment. It was submitted that, in circumstances where Cho had allegedly continued to offend in a brazen manner despite being confronted about his conduct, and where there was little indication of remorse or insight on Cho’s part, the impact of any treatment, particularly in the relatively short term, must be doubtful.
(8)The accused’s personal circumstances, associations, home environment and background. It was submitted that Cho has no substantial ties to any community in Victoria, given his current professional status, lack of family in Australia and most of his friendships being tenuous and based on contacts from shared accommodation, some of whom have now been identified as alleged victims. It was further submitted that Cho had to move residence 4 times between being bailed on 10 July 2025 and his subsequent arrest on 25 July 2025, as he had struggled to find stable accommodation.
(9)The proposal that Cho’s parents will live with and support him. It was noted that his parents’ visas will expire in November 2025, and they are unable to work in Australia. It was also suggested that there is no information available to the prosecution to suggest a further application for a visa has been made by Cho’s parents, or would be granted if made. Further, it was submitted that Australian Border Force records indicate that Cho’s parents departed Australia on 4 August 2025.
(10)The length of time the accused is likely to spend in custody if bail is refused. It was submitted in response to Cho’s suggestion of likely delays in the prosecution that all digital devices had been analysed, and that the brief of evidence will be prepared for service on 1 October 2025, with further investigation to remain ongoing.
(11)Any known view or likely view of an alleged victim of the offending on the grant of bail. It was submitted that alleged victims have been consulted and have expressed the view that Cho should not be granted bail. It was indicated that Victoria Police had contacted just over 120 alleged victims so far.
(12)The availability of employment, were he to be released on bail. It was submitted that this has not been addressed fully by Cho, and that it is not apparent how Cho would be able to obtain employment in circumstances where he is unable to work in his profession, has no family ties in Australia and has been identified in significant media coverage in respect of the charges.
[25]This was put as a matter of inference rather than relying on any direct evidence to this effect.
The prosecution also submitted that Cho presented an unacceptable risk of interfering with a witness or otherwise obstructing the course of justice in any matter. In this regard, reference was made to:
(1)Cho abusing his professional power by allegedly contacting a former colleague and requesting that he collect items from Austin Health that were ultimately seized by Victoria Police.[26]
(2)Cho demonstrating indifference to authority by allegedly continuing to offend after being confronted by Austin Health staff.[27]
(3)Cho contacting a former housemate, who is alleged to be a victim, to seek accommodation after being evicted from his accommodation.
[26]See par 26 above.
[27]See pars 13-16 above.
The prosecution did not propose any bail conditions capable of ameliorating the risk said to be posed by Cho to an acceptable level.
In summary, the prosecution submitted that, while no single factor indicated that Cho would be an unacceptable risk if bail were granted, the cumulative effect of the matters raised was that a risk would exist and it would be unacceptable.
E. Consideration
As stated above, the onus is on the prosecution to establish that Cho would be an unacceptable risk of the kinds identified if he were granted bail. To be clear, Cho does not have any requirement to show he is not an unacceptable risk.
Accordingly, under the Bail Act, Cho must be granted bail unless the prosecution discharges its onus. For those present today who are not lawyers, it is noted that although there are many, many charges Cho faces, this is not a case where Cho must establish exceptional circumstances or a compelling reason before he may be granted bail. Such thresholds are imposed with respect to what Parliament has identified as more serious charges expressly enumerated in schedules to the Bail Act.
Further, the Bail Act imposes an obligation on the court to identify and impose conditions which may make, what would otherwise have been an unacceptable risk, a risk that is acceptable for the purposes of the Bail Act. Cho has agreed to very strict conditions.
Despite the undoubted seriousness of the charges, there are numerous factors that indicate that bail ought to be granted.
Without exhaustively repeating what is set out above, these include the fact that Cho has already been on bail and there is no suggestion he breached any conditions of bail previously. Significantly, there is no history of Cho ever threatening or intimidating any person.
Further, the conditions to be imposed will not allow Cho to attend at any location at which any of the offences are alleged to have occurred. While, of course, there is a risk he may offend at other locations, he will not be permitted to be in possession of any telephone or other device that would allow him to make any recording.
Furthermore, Cho’s experience on remand in oppressive conditions for the last 4 weeks is highly likely to have provided a strong salutary lesson as to the seriousness of the alleged conduct and the severe consequences that would follow if he were to breach his conditions of bail.
Moreover, contrary to his previous position, he will now be required to undergo appropriate treatment to address any issues that exist which have given rise to the charges. Regardless of the strength of the prosecution case, there could be no real controversy that Cho is likely to benefit from engaging in treatment. As things presently stand, he is unable to access that treatment on remand. The support he will receive will also include the immediate and direct support of his family, who are also clearly taking this matter very seriously. In that regard, a bail undertaking of $50,000 is a factor of considerable weight in favour of bail being granted.
In addition, both reporting obligations and a curfew will be imposed to restrict Cho’s movements.
The court has received considerable assistance from the prosecution’s submissions.
It is accepted that there may be some ongoing doubt as to the ability of Cho‘s parents to remain in Victoria. However, in the immediate future they intend, and are able to, reside with Cho at a residence that is available for the next 6 months. If there is any material change in the position of the parents or Cho’s residential arrangements, the prosecution may return to court to seek any appropriate variation to the conditions of bail or apply to have bail revoked.
Further, although it would appear that the prosecution has a strong case, the extent that this is so is far from clear. Accordingly, it is also unclear what period of time Cho would likely be imprisoned if he were to be found guilty. Given the potential for delay by reason of the sheer volume of material that needs to be addressed, there is a real risk that if bail were not granted Cho would spend more time on remand than any sentence that might be imposed. With the exception of a stalking charge (which is confined to allegedly using optical devices),[28] the maximum penalties for the remaining offences is either 2 or 3 years.[29] Although I am not satisfied an inordinate amount of delay is likely, on any view Cho is likely to spend up to a year in custody on remand if the matter does not resolve, in very difficult circumstances and without access to proper treatment.
[28]Cho’s senior counsel raised the prospect of this offence not being maintainable, but it is unnecessary to say anything further about this.
[29]Crimes Act, ss 53R(2), 465AAA(5); Surveillance Devices Act, s 7(1).
With respect to the risk of flight, the risk of this occurring is slim. Cho has already surrendered his passport. He has no criminal record and there is no suggestion he has any affiliation with any criminal organisation or persons. Thus, regardless of the level of his ties to the jurisdiction, it would appear highly likely that there is no realistic prospect of Cho fleeing the jurisdiction.
The court fully respects the attitude of the alleged victims in relation to whether or not Cho should be granted bail. However, as I hope has already been made clear, this factor, while plainly relevant and of significant weight, cannot be determinative of the outcome of this application. As explained above, the court is required to take into account all the relevant surrounding circumstances, including the attitude of the alleged victims.
Finally, the evidence does not establish that there is an unacceptable risk of Cho interfering with a witness or otherwise obstructing the course of justice. Although there is no dispute that Cho contacted his former housemate while he was on bail on the last occasion and that it is alleged that she is one of his victims, at the time he did so this was not a breach of his conditions of bail. As already observed, there is no suggestion that previously he breached any condition of bail.
F. Conclusion
Accordingly, orders will be made today granting Cho bail subject to the following conditions:
1.The applicant is admitted to bail on his own undertaking, and with a bail guarantee from [Cho’s father] in the amount of $50,000, on the following conditions, namely that he must:
(1)Reside at [address] (“the Residence”) .
(2)Not change place of residence without leave of the court.
(3)Remain at the Residence between the hours of 9.00pm and 6.00am (“the Curfew Hours”).
(4)Present himself at the front door of the Residence during the Curfew Hours if and when called upon by a member of Victoria Police to do so.
(5)Unless the informant provides written authority exempting compliance with this condition for a specified period, report to the officer in charge of the Seddon police station, or her or his nominee, once every Monday, Wednesday and Friday between the hours of 8.00am and 8.00pm.
(6)Not attend any hospital, other than with the prior agreement of the informant or for emergency medical purposes.
(7)If an emergency referred to in the preceding condition occurs, and the applicant attends a hospital as a result, the applicant must (without interfering with any treatment the applicant may require) notify the informant of the fact that he attended at a hospital as soon as practicable.
(8)Not leave the State of Victoria.
(9)Not attend any port, airport or international point of departure.
(10)Surrender any current passport or any interstate or international travel documents in the applicant’s possession or control to the informant, or her nominees, within 24 hours of the date of these orders.
(11)Not apply for any passport or any interstate or international travel documents or cause, whether directly or indirectly, any other person to do so on the applicant’s behalf.
(12)Not contact any person he knows is or is likely to be a witness for the prosecution, other than Informant Baykur.
(13)Not possess a camera, a video recording device or any other device capable of recording images or sounds, or both, whether that recording device be a mobile phone or otherwise.
(14)Continue to engage with treatment and counselling by Dr [name], and obey all her lawful directions.
(15)Engage with treatment and counselling by Dr [name], and obey all his lawful directions.
(16)Attend the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria at Melbourne at 10.00am on Friday, 14 November 2025, and there surrender and not depart without leave of the court and, if leave is given, return at the time specified by the court and again surrender into custody.
---
0
4
0