Re Cho - [2025] VSC 523

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.

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 Cho

Details

AGLC: Re Cho [2025] VSC 523
Case: [2025] VSC 523
Decision Date: 22 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re Cho, the applicant faced a legal dispute concerning the terms of his bail. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The applicant had been charged with various offences, including contravening surveillance device prohibitions, possessing an unauthorised surveillance device, and possessing a knife in a public place. The primary concern was whether the applicant was entitled to bail, considering the nature and seriousness of the alleged offences, the strength of the prosecution case, and the applicant's personal circumstances.

The court had to decide whether the risk posed by the applicant, if released on bail, was unacceptable. It considered the applicant's compliance with previous bail conditions, the availability of stable accommodation, and the proposed therapeutic treatment. The prosecution argued that the applicant's offending was serious and that he was a flight risk. The applicant, on the other hand, submitted that he was not a flight risk and that he had a strong support network.

After considering all the factors, the court concluded that the risk was not shown to be unacceptable. It found that the applicant had a significant support network and that he had complied with his previous bail conditions. The court also noted that the applicant had a history of mental health issues and that he was participating in therapeutic treatment. The court granted the applicant bail, subject to certain conditions, including regular reporting to the bail justice and compliance with a curfew.

The court made an order granting the applicant bail, subject to specific conditions. These included that the applicant reside at a specified address, that he comply with a curfew, and that he not possess any knives or surveillance devices. The applicant was also required to attend regular appointments with his mental health support services.

Orders