Re Nguyen (Bail Application) - [2025] VSC 179

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2025 0031

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977

- and –

IN THE MATTER of an application for bail by Luc Van Nguyen

LUC VAN NGUYEN

VICTORIA POLICE

---

JUDGE:	Gorton J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 & 3 April 2025
DATE OF RULING:	8 April 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Nguyen (Bail Application)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 179

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for bail – Where allegations of cultivating and trafficking not less than commercial quantity of cannabis and other related offence – Where time in custody will likely exceed likely non-parole period but not sentence if allegations proved - Where applicant has previously complied with bail and has no criminal record – Where applicant has wife with depression and toddler and newborn - Where surety offered to Court and applicant has opportunity of employment – Exceptional circumstances test satisfied – Where false statements made in visa and other applications - Where applicant has no legal right to work or connections to Victoria and access to false identify documentation and wife has history of drug offences – Unacceptable risk that will fail to surrender into custody or will commit offences if granted bail – Bail refused – Bail Act 1977 (Vic), ss 3AAA, 4A, 4E.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms Carmen Randazzo SC	Giorgianni & Liang Lawyers
For the Respondent	Ms Emily Allan	Office of Public Prosecutions

Contents

A. Introduction

B. The application and material relied on

C. Exceptional circumstances

D. Unacceptable risk

E. Disposition

HIS HONOUR:

A. Introduction

Mr Luc Van Nguyen, the applicant, who is now 28 years old, is applying for bail. He is charged with cultivating cannabis in a quantity that is not less than a commercial quantity in breach of s 72A of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, trafficking cannabis in a quantity that is not less than a commercial quantity contrary to s 71AA of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, possessing a drug of dependence, stealing electricity, and damaging property. The charges follow Senior Constable Weller, the Informant, finding the applicant present at a large and sophisticated cannabis nursery in a factory in Braeside where there were some 575 juvenile plants and seedlings, grow lights, extractor fans, and watering and fertilising equipment in one part of the factory, a further 122 plants across three rooms in another part of the factory, and another 240 mature plants again with fertilised irrigation extractor fans and grow lights in another part of the factory. According to the Informant, the applicant was observed attending at the factory with a co-accused in a vehicle and then spending several hours inside the factory. The applicant and the co-accused fled when the Informant approached them as they left the factory, but were apprehended. There was nothing but the cannabis nursery at the factory.
I am obliged…

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 Nguyen (Bail Application)

Details

AGLC: Re Nguyen (Bail Application) [2025] VSC 179
Case: [2025] VSC 179
Decision Date: 8 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Nguyen (Bail Application) involved an individual facing serious criminal charges, including the cultivation and trafficking of a commercial quantity of cannabis, alongside other related offences. The application for bail was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The primary dispute centred around whether the applicant should be granted bail given the severity of the charges, his history of complying with bail conditions, and the exceptional circumstances of his family life, juxtaposed against the risk he posed to the community if released.

The court was tasked with determining whether the exceptional circumstances test under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) was satisfied, considering the applicant's family responsibilities and the support he could potentially access, such as employment and surety. Additionally, the court needed to assess the risk that the applicant would fail to surrender into custody or commit further offences, taking into account his past history of making false statements in visa applications and his possession of false identity documentation. The court also considered the applicant's lack of legal right to work and his limited connections to Victoria.

Upon weighing these factors, the court concluded that while the exceptional circumstances test was satisfied, the risk that the applicant would fail to surrender into custody or commit further offences outweighed the mitigating factors. The applicant's previous misuse of false documentation and the history of drug offences within his immediate family were significant concerns. Therefore, the court found that granting bail would present an unacceptable risk to the community. Consequently, the bail application was refused under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).

Orders