Re Liang (No 2)

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:	19 July 2024
DATE OF RULING:	19 July 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Liang (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 426

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Charges of aggravated burglary and persistent contravention of family violence notices and intervention orders – Schedule 2 offences – Family violence risks – Bail previously granted for a limited period while complainant outside the jurisdiction – Complainant returned to the jurisdiction – Requirement to show compelling reason – Compelling reason established – Unacceptable risk not established – Further application granted – Bail Act 1977 (Vic), ss 3AAA, 4AA, 4C, 4D, 4E, 5AAA.

---

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

HIS HONOUR:

On 8 July 2024, the applicant, Yingda Liang (“Liang”), was granted bail on strict conditions,[1] but only for a limited period which expires today. In finding that a compelling reason had been established,[2] it was noted that the evidence of the complainant’s whereabouts was somewhat lacking.[3] The evidence was that she had returned to China, but it was unclear whether and, if so, when she would return to Australia.
[1]Re Liang [2024] VSC 416.
[2]Ibid, [41]-[44], [47]-[48], [68]-[73]. See also Bail Act 1977 (Vic), ss 1B, 3AAA, 4AA, 4C.
[3]Re Liang [2024] VSC 416, [73].
The matter has now been clarified. The evidence on this application shows that the complainant returned on 8 July 2024 and thus has been back in Australia for 11 days. The other factors considered in determining whether a compelling reason exists remain unchanged, so essentially the key matter for consideration is whether, taking into account the complainant’s return to Australia in the context of all the circumstances including the surrounding circumstances, Liang has established a compelling reason exists such that bail should be granted.
In contrast to the previous application, the prosecution does not oppose the further grant of bail. Naturally, the court must still determine for itself whether bail ought to be granted.
The evidence discloses the complainant has returned to Melbourne and is now living at a different residential address, where she is residing with others. It is not suggested the address is known to Liang. Further, the complainant has told police that she has not been contacted by Liang since he has been on bail, which indicates he has been complying with the relevant conditions of bail. She also reportedly expressed the view to police yesterday that she did not believe that Liang would try to locate her.
In these circumstances, I am satisfied that a compelling reason has been established when considered in the context of the current surrounding circumstances and for the reasons previously articulated.[4]
[4]See fn 2 above.
Liang’s legal representatives informed the court by email that if bail were to again be granted, Liang would be willing to abide by the same strict conditions of bail as those imposed on 8 July 2024.
When the facts referred to above are considered in combination with Liang’s compliance with his bail conditions over the past 11 days and the other surrounding circumstances,[5] it cannot be established that Liang poses an unacceptable risk of the kind referred to in section 4E(1) of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).[6]
[5]Re Liang [2024] VSC 416, [45]-[50], [74]-[78].
[6]Bail Act, ss 4D, 4E, 5AAA.
Accordingly, bail will be granted again, subject to terms largely reflective of a continuation of those imposed on 8 July 2024.[7] In imposing the conduct conditions of bail, I have had regard to the requirements of section 5AAA(2) of the Bail Act in the context of Liang’s willingness to continue to be subject to the same conditions of bail. In this regard, it is noted that at the hearing Liang’s counsel submitted that should Liang seek to apply to vary the conditions of his bail, he will have an opportunity to do so in less than 1 months’ time when he is required to attend the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria at Melbourne at 10.00am on 14 August 2024 and there surrender himself into custody, subject to further order of that court.
[7]Re Liang [2024] VSC 416, [81].

---

The applicant, Liang, appeared before the court seeking a further extension of his bail conditions following charges of aggravated burglary and persistent contravention of family violence notices and intervention orders. The primary concern was the risk of family violence posed by the applicant, given the complainant had returned to the jurisdiction. This case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The applicant had previously been granted bail under strict conditions, which were to expire while the complainant was outside the jurisdiction. With the complainant now within the jurisdiction, the applicant sought another extension of his bail conditions.

The court was required to determine whether there was a compelling reason to further extend the applicant's bail and whether the unacceptable risk of family violence had been established. The legal issues centred on the interpretation and application of sections 3AAA, 4AA, 4C, 4D, 4E, and 5AAA of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic). The court had to balance the applicant's right to liberty against the need to protect the complainant from potential harm. The applicant argued that there were compelling reasons to extend his bail, primarily due to the ongoing legal proceedings and the need for him to prepare his defence. The prosecution contended that there was still an unacceptable risk of family violence, necessitating the denial of further bail.

The court found that there was a compelling reason to grant a further extension of the applicant's bail, as the legal proceedings required his continued presence to prepare a defence. However, the court determined that the unacceptable risk of family violence had not been established. The court was satisfied that the applicant could abide by the bail conditions and that the risk could be mitigated. Consequently, the court granted the application for a further extension of the applicant's bail. The final orders included specific conditions designed to protect the complainant while allowing the applicant to continue his legal preparations.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established