Re Liang - [2024] VSC 416

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2024 0147

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic)

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by Yingda LIANG

---

JUDGE:	Elliott J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 July 2024
DATE OF RULING:	8 July 2024
DATE OF REASONS:	15 July 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Liang
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 416

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Charges of aggravated burglary and persistent contravention of family violence notices and intervention orders – Schedule 2 offences – Requirement to show compelling reason – Nature and seriousness of alleged offending – Strength of prosecution case – Anticipated delay – Whether time spent on remand likely to outweigh any term of imprisonment – No criminal history – Availability of stable accommodation – Bail guarantee – Recent history of family violence – Family violence risks – Complainant presently outside the jurisdiction – Compelling reason established – Unacceptable risk not established – Bail granted for a limited period – Bail Act 1977 (Vic), ss 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4C, 4D, 4E, 5AAAA, 5AAA.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the applicant	J Willee	Vstar Lawyers and Consultants
For the respondent	S Thomas	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

A. Introduction

On 21 May 2024, the applicant, Yingda Liang (“Liang”), was charged with the following offences:
(1)Wilful entry of a private place without authority, contrary to section 9(1)(e) of the Summary Offences Act1966 (Vic) on 3 May 2024.
(2)Persistent contravention of notices and orders, contrary to section 125A(1) of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) between 8 May 2024 and 19 May 2024.
(3)Aggravated burglary, contrary to section 77(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) on 19 May 2024.
(4)Assault, contrary to common law on 19 May 2024.
(5)Common assault, contrary to section 23 of the Summary Offences Act on 19 May 2024.
(6)Contravention of a family violence intervention order, contrary to section 123(2) of the Family Violence Protection Act on 19 May 2024.
(7)Contravention of an order intending to cause harm or fear for safety, contrary to section 123A(2) of the Family Violence Protection Act on 19 May 2024.
(8)Reckless conduct endangering life, contrary to section 22 of the Crimes Act on 19 May 2024.
The matter is next listed in the Magistrates’ Court at Melbourne on 14 August 2024 for a committal case conference and committal mention.
Liang has previously made 2 unsuccessful applications for bail in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria. Liang first applied for bail in the Magistrates’ Court at Melbourne on 22 May 2024. The application was refused on the basis that the prosecution had established that Liang posed an unacceptable risk of interfering with a witness or otherwise obstructing the course of justice.
Liang made a further application for bail in the Magistrates’ Court at Melbourne on 14 June 2024. The application was adjourned to 18 June 2024 to allow Liang to provide the court with…

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 Liang

Details

AGLC: Re Liang [2024] VSC 416
Case: [2024] VSC 416
Decision Date: 8 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Liang involved the respondent, Liang, who faced charges of aggravated burglary and persistent contravention of family violence notices and intervention orders. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. Liang sought bail, which was opposed by the prosecution on the grounds of the serious nature of the charges and the risk of family violence.

The court had to determine whether compelling reasons existed to grant bail, considering the nature and seriousness of the alleged offences, the strength of the prosecution case, the risk of delay, and the likelihood that any term of imprisonment would be outweighed by the time spent on remand. The court also assessed Liang's criminal history, the availability of stable accommodation, and the potential for a bail guarantee. Notably, Liang had no prior criminal history and had access to stable accommodation. However, the prosecution raised concerns about the recent history of family violence and the risk of violence against the complainant, who was currently outside the jurisdiction.

The court found that Liang had established compelling reasons for bail, as the alleged offences were not so serious that they should preclude bail. The court was satisfied that the prosecution case was not so strong that it would likely result in a conviction. It was also determined that the anticipated delay was unlikely to be outweighed by any term of imprisonment, and the risk of family violence did not amount to an unacceptable risk. Consequently, the court granted bail for a limited period, subject to conditions aimed at managing the risks identified.

The final orders included bail being granted with conditions such as regular check-ins with a bail supervisor, refraining from contact with the complainant, and abiding by a curfew. Liang was also required to reside at a specified address and to comply with any further conditions the court deemed necessary.

Orders