CRIMINAL LAW - Application for bail - Charges of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence and other drug related offending - Potential delay of three years before trial - Motivation to reunite with young children currently in the care of DFFH - Parity - Exceptional circumstances established - Unacceptable risk not demonstrated - Bail granted with conditions - Bail Act 1977 (Vic) s 1B, s 3AAA, s 4AA, s 4A, s 4D, s 4E - Cases cited: Re Ning [2020] VSC 609; Re Boo [2020] VSC 882; Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Abbott

1 This is an application for bail by Soo Phing Chew ('the applicant') in relation to 11 charges brought by Detective Constable Stuart Burnham ('the informant'), as follows:

(a) trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence (methylamphetamine) (three charges);[1]

(b) possessing substances, materials or equipment for trafficking in a drug of dependence (two charges);[2]

(c) reckless conduct endangering life;[3]

(d) possessing a drug of dependence (methylamphetamine and cannabis) (two charges);[4]

(e) negligently dealing with the proceeds of crime;[5]

(f) cultivating a narcotic plant;[6] and

(g) possessing a precursor chemical (hydrobromic acid).[7]

2 All charges relate to the applicant's alleged involvement in a large-scale drug-trafficking syndicate involving 15 co-accused. She was charged and remanded in custody on 10 February 2020 and has therefore been in custody for 459 days.

3 On 16 April 2021, the applicant was refused bail in the Melbourne Magistrates' Court on the basis that the respondent had apparently established the she posed an unacceptable risk of committing an offence while on bail, interfering with a witness or otherwise obstructing the course of justice in any matter, or failing to surrender into custody in accordance with the conditions of bail. I assume without knowing the Court's reasons in detail that the emphasis was on the last of those factors.

4 By application filed on 28 April 2021, the applicant seeks a grant of bail in this Court. The matter is next listed for committal mention in the Melbourne Magistrates' Court on 31 May 2021. This is a case of significant proportions as to both the complexity of the evidence and the number of accused involved.

5 In support of the application, an affidavit in support of bail affirmed by the applicant's solicitor Brett Barratt and an outline of submissions in support of the application have been filed.

6 The respondent opposes the application. Lauren Spence, on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions, has filed an affidavit in response to the application. The respondent concedes that it is open to find on the evidence that the applicant has established exceptional circumstances that would justify a grant of bail. It is however argued that the applicant is an unacceptable risk of failing to appear and bail is opposed on that basis. It is argued that a combination of factors result in the applicant having a motive to flee the jurisdiction. An important question is whether she has any means to do so and what the consequences would for her and her two children if she did.

7 In February 2020, the Victoria Police Clandestine Laboratory Squad commenced an investigation into the activities of an alleged drug trafficking syndicate operating in Victoria and Tasmania. Evidence obtained as a result of that investigation indicates that the syndicate had been operating a large-scale enterprise since 2018, involving:

(a) the importation of more than five tonnes of precursor chemicals;

(b) the establishment of three clandestine laboratories used to manufacture methylamphetamine;

(c) the cultivation of cannabis; and

(d) money laundering activities to legitimise the syndicate's income, including the operation of poultry farms and rural labour hire businesses.

8 It is the prosecution case that under the direction of alleged syndicate leaders, Eng Beng Koh, Yining Tao and Xiao Yan Ning, the applicant and her partner, Kag Lai Lim, were involved in facilitating the manufacture of methylamphetmine at their rented home at 53 Direction Drive, Tarneit, and at another property located at 27 Rockgarden Drive, Truganina. They are alleged to have also facilitated the cultivation of cannabis at the latter address.

9 On 10 February 2020, police attended the Direction Drive address to conduct enquiries in relation to a separate matter. Kag Lai Lim led the officers inside the house to a study where they spoke with the applicant and Lim. During their conversation, one of the officers requested to use the toilet. He was directed to a bathroom, where the officer observed a large rotary evaporator, liquids inside assorted items of glassware, and over 100 litres of acetone. The officer also observed a door to an adjacent room which appeared to be locked. The applicant and Lim were asked about the bathroom and adjacent room. The pair responded that they did not possess a key to access the locked room, had no knowledge of its contents, and did not use that area of the house, stating that it was occupied by three unknown males.

10 The applicant and Lim were both arrested and advised to collect items for their two children. A search of the belongings collected by the applicant revealed $31,560 in cash and a number of receipts relating to the purchase of chemicals and transactions linked to other properties used by the syndicate. The applicant and Lim were taken to the City West Police Complex and their children were placed in the care of the Department of Health and Human Services (as it was then known).

11 A search of the Direction Drive property was undertaken and investigators seized over 180 exhibits, including:

(a) $7,311.70 AUD in cash, along with amounts of foreign currency;

(b) 5.01 kilograms of pure methylamphetamine;

(c) scientific glassware and equipment;

(d) liquids suspected to be solvents, acids and precursor chemicals;

(e) air purifying respirators and gloves;

(f) multiple receipts for the purchase of large amounts of caustic soda, acetone, methanol and hydrochloric acid; and

(g) documents indicating that the applicant was paying the rent and utilities at another property located at 27 Rockgarden Drive, Truganina.

12 During her record of interview, the applicant stated that she had not been in the bathroom at the back of the Direction Drive property before, as that part of the residence was rented out to Lim's friend 'Along' and another male. She denied any knowledge of drug manufacturing in her home and advised that the money found in her possession was set aside to obtain a visa for her son.

13 During his interview, Lim stated that he had lived at the Direction Drive property for approximately three to four months with the applicant and their children. He stated that two other men lived at the back of the property, that being 'Along' and another male he did not know. When asked about the various receipts located by investigators, he immediately asked to speak with a lawyer and stated that he would not answer any further questions.

14 The applicant and Lim were charged and remanded in custody.

15 Forensic analysis of items found at the Direction Drive property located the presence of the applicant's DNA on two used gloves, and Lim's DNA on three used gloves, all of which were found within the locked clandestine laboratory. Lim's fingerprints were also found on a glass oven tray and a beaker. DNA of other alleged syndicate members was located at the property. Wei Yu Boo's DNA was found on a bucket located inside a bedroom, while DNA of Eng Beng Koh, Yining Tao, Hanyin Zhang and Eng Kok Koh was located on a respirator mask. The fingerprints of Yew Kean Koo were also located on two pieces of glassware.

16 Further evidence was obtained from the applicant's mobile phone. Conversations on the messaging application 'WeChat' were located in which the applicant allegedly provided instructions to fellow syndicate member, Tiem Foo Cheah, on how to manufacture drugs, and where she separately discussed the movement of equipment with Lim. A further mobile phone found at the Direction Drive address allegedly contained a WeChat conversation between the applicant and Lim in which the pair discussed the purchase of laboratory equipment.

17 A handbook found in the applicant's possession at the time of her arrest was translated and found to contain a running tally of weights and references to quantities of 'powder', 'crystal sheet', and 'ice sand'.

18 Following the applicant and Lim's arrest, a further 22 search warrants were executed at addresses in Victoria and Tasmania linked to the syndicate. At those properties, investigators located and seized large quantities of methylamphetamine, chemicals, solvents, glassware and equipment commonly used in the manufacture of methylamphetamine, cannabis, hydroponic equipment commonly used in the cultivation of cannabis, large amounts of cash, mobile phones, vehicles, and jewellery.

19 At the 27 Rockgarden Drive, Truganina address, investigators located a cannabis crop which appeared to have been freshly harvested, 52.2 grams of cannabis, approximately 2.5 kilograms of pure methylamphetamine, and a variety of equipment and precursor chemicals, including a 180 litre barrel of hydrobromic acid.

20 In addition to the applicant and Lim, 14 further co-accused have been charged in relation to the syndicate's alleged activities: Xiao Yan Ning, Eng Beng Koh, Yining Tao, Wei Yu Boo, Hang Kwok, Yew Kean Koo, Tiem Foo Cheah, Cyrene Liew, You Pou Chan, Eng Kok Koh, Zheng Cai Kuay, Chexmang Wong, Swee Chin Lim and Hanyin Zhang.

21 Swee Chin Lim and Hanyin Zhang were both charged on summons, and the matter as against You Pou Chan has since finalised. Xiao Yan Ning, Wei Yu Boo, Chexmang Wong and Cyrene Liew have each been released on bail. All other co-accused remain on remand.

22 Xiao Yan Ning and Wei Yu Boo were both granted bail in this Court by me on 17 September 2020 and 29 December 2020, respectively.

23 Xiao Yan Ning was charged with trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence (methylamphetamine) and negligently dealing with the proceeds of crime. In granting bail to Ms Ning, I found that exceptional circumstances had been established by the combination of her lack of criminal history, the fact she was the sole care-giver to her two infant children, and the anticipated delay of three years before the matter would go to trial.[8] I was not satisfied that Ms Ning posed an unacceptable risk and, instead, found that any potential risk could be mitigated with appropriate conditions.[9]

24 Wei Yu Boo was charged with possessing substances, materials or equipment for trafficking in a drug of dependence, trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence (methylamphetamine), possessing child abuse material and contravening a conduct condition of bail. On hearing his application for bail, I found that exceptional circumstances were established, taking into account the principle of parity and Mr Boo's relative culpability when compared to Ms Ning, as well as hardship to his family by reason of his remand. I also acted on the basis that there was a prospect that if bail were refused his time on remand could exceed any sentence he may ultimately receive.[10] I also found that the imposition of strict conditions were sufficient to ameliorate any risk in his release on bail.[11]

25 The applicant is a 36 year old Malaysian national. She arrived in Australia on a tourist visa in 2014 after which time she met her partner, Kag Lai Lim. She was employed in a factory for a period of time but ceased working in December 2016 before the birth of her first child. The applicant and Lim have two children together, aged three and four. Both children are currently subject to a 10-month Family Reunification Order made in the Melbourne Children's Court on 23 April 2021 and have been in the care of the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing ('DFFH') since the applicant and Lim were arrested and remanded in custody on 10 February 2020.

26 The applicant has undertaken a number of courses of study whilst in Australia, including English language and a leadership course at the Central Melbourne Institute. She is currently in Australia on a student visa which is due to expire on 14 July 2021.

27 The applicant has no criminal history and no outstanding matters.

28 I am required to take into account the guiding principles set out in s 1B(1) of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ('the Act') when applying and interpreting the Act.

29 The applicant is charged with trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, which is a Schedule 1 offence within the meaning of the Act.[12] It follows that bail must be refused unless she can satisfy this Court that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail.[13]

30 In determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, the Court take into account the relevant 'surrounding circumstances', including, but not limited to, those prescribed in s 3AAA(1) of the Act.[14]

31 If satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist, the Court must apply the 'unacceptable risk test'.[15] That is, bail must be refused if the respondent satisfies the Court that there is a risk of the kind set out in s 4E(1)(a) of the Act, and that such risk is an unacceptable risk.[16]

32 In considering whether any relevant risk is unacceptable, the Court must again have regard to the 'surrounding circumstances' contained in s 3AAA of the Act and consider whether there are any conditions of bail that may be imposed to mitigate risk so that it is not unacceptable.[17]

33 The issue of parity arises on this application, particularly given that bail has been granted to several of the applicant's alleged accomplices. Consistent with the applicant's submissions in this matter, this Court has previously held that parity is a relevant consideration in applications for bail.

34 In Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Abbott, Gillard J held that the principle of parity can be applied in bail applications where it can "be established that things are equal as between the co-offenders".[18] In Bchinnati v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) (No 2), Croucher J stated that the principle applies in cases where, "the circumstances of two accused are sufficiently similar that, if bail had been granted to one, it would be wrong to refuse bail to the other, or at least the grant of bail to one would be a relevant consideration on the application of the other".[19] Croucher J found that it would be "wholly unfair" to deny bail to the applicant in that matter in circumstances where the co-accused was granted bail for what his Honour regarded as "related but comparatively far more serious allegations of the same type".[20]

35 As I understood the submissions on behalf of the respondent, whilst parity has significance on the issue of exceptional circumstances it may have less significance on the issue of unacceptable risk because the factors that bear on that question are necessarily more subjective. Having said that, where the emphasis is placed on the applicant's alleged motive to flee the jurisdiction, that may have a more generalised application in a case like the present. Most of the accused are from overseas countries and therefore all likely to face the temptation of evading criminal proceedings here.

36 Since I need to be satisfied that exceptional circumstances have been established by the applicant notwithstanding the concession of the respondent, it is appropriate to identify and deal with the following matters which in combination are said to demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of bail:

37 It was submitted that there are triable issues in this matter, particularly in relation to the allegations of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine and the applicant's alleged involvement in drug manufacturing activities at the 27 Rockgarden Drive, Truganina address. The applicant disputes that the prosecution case with respect to these charges is strong.

38 The applicant has no criminal history. The present remand period represents her first time in custody.

39 If granted bail, the applicant proposes to reside in short-term accommodation organised by Women's Housing Ltd at [redacted], East St Kilda. Women's Housing Ltd will then be refer the applicant to Launch Housing to explore alternative accommodation options. Thus, whilst the applicant has a proposed bail address, there is a degree of uncertainty about its long term stability if bail were granted.

40 The applicant's two children reside in Australia, as does her partner, Lim. Both of their children have been in the care of DFFH since the pair were arrested and remanded on 10 February 2020. The applicant sought to have both children reside with her at the Dame Phyllis Frost Centre under the 'Living with Mum' program, but her application was refused.

41 Child Protection also explored the possibility of both children residing in Malaysia in the care of the applicant or Lim's family, however, that arrangement was ultimately not agreed to.

42 On 23 April 2021, the Children's Court placed both children on a 10-month Family Reunification Order. If the applicant is granted bail, the applicant intends to work with Child Protection to pursue the objective of family reunification. In so doing, she will be required to accept support services as agreed between herself and DFFH, accept visits from Child Protection workers, complete supervised drug and alcohol screens as directed by DFFH, and will be required to participate in an assessment for drug and alcohol dependency should any of her screens produce positive results for illicit substances.

Counsel for the applicant submitted that the ongoing separation from her children and their placement in care has been a source of hardship, which is analogous to that faced by co-accused Xiao Yan Ning. Counsel for the respondent accepted that the significance of the relationship between a mother and young children was a matter of consequence.

43 Counsel for the applicant relied on parity, particularly in relation to the grants of bail to Xiao Yan Ning and Wei Yu Boo by me.

44 Similarities can be drawn between the present application and that of Ms Ning, noting that the pair are of a similar age, both have no criminal history and each hold visas permitting them to remain within Australia. The pair have both experienced hardship by reason of their children being placed in care during their remand. Also relevant to the question of parity is that, according to the prosecution case, the applicant is lower in the syndicate hierarchy than Ms Ning.

It was submitted that the applicant presents as less of a flight risk when compared with Mr Boo, noting that he twice failed to provide his passport to police when initially released on bail, and was consequently charged with contravening a conduct condition of bail.

45 The applicant faces greater delay than Ms Ning and Mr Boo, given that the applicant was remanded on 10 February 2020 and Ms Ning and Mr Boo were not placed in custody until 1 July 2020 and 15 September 2020, respectively. As I earlier noted, the applicant has already been in custody for 459 days.

46 The applicant contends that there have been a number of delays in her matter proceeding to a committal hearing, as the respondent successfully sought an extension of time to serve the brief of evidence, the final version of which had not yet been served at the time of filing her application for bail. An original contested committal date in February 2021 was vacated and re-listed for hearing over the course of 15 days commencing on 26 July 2021. By that date, the applicant will have been on remand for close to 18 months if bail is refused. Her counsel submitted that such delay alone constitutes exceptional circumstances.

47 Of greater concern is the likely time between charge and trial. Counsel for the applicant forecast that it was going to be in excess of 3 years. I have had the misfortune to preside over a number of similar applications where delays of that kind were predicted. A period of three years in custody coupled with the uncertainty about when a matter might finalise is a significant punishment in itself. A refusal of bail is not intended to operate as a sentence for the alleged offending. S 1B of the Act, a section often mentioned but, I suspect, not regularly considered is in the following terms:[21]

_(1) The Parliament recognises the importance of - _

(a) maximising the safety of the community and persons affected by crime to the greatest extent possible; and

(b) taking account of the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty; and

(c) promoting fairness, transparency and consistency in bail decision making; and

(d) promoting public understanding of bail practices and procedures.

(2) It is the intention of the Parliament that this Act is to be applied and interpreted having regard to the matters set out in subsection (1).

48 Other than in most unusual circumstances where the considerations referred to in s (1)(a) apply, in my view three years of pre-sentence detention where the length of that period is completely beyond the control of the person in custody is utterly inconsistent with ss 1(b) & (c).

49 Counsel for the applicant submitted that she does not pose an unacceptable risk of failing to answer bail as any such risk is mitigated by the current restrictions on international travel facing the community as a whole, the absence of access to any travel documents permitting her to leave the jurisdiction, and the fact that her two children are in the care of DFFH. The applicant's passport has been seized by the informant. One of the children lacks any travel documents allowing them to travel overseas, the other has a passport which is in the custody of DFFH. Counsel for the applicant further contended that there is no credible evidence to suggest that she poses a risk of interfering with a witness or otherwise obstructing the course of justice in any matter. It was submitted that risk can be mitigated to an acceptable level by the imposition of appropriate bail conditions.

50 As earlier noted, counsel for the respondent conceded that it is open to the Court to find that exceptional circumstances exist which justify the grant of bail. However, the application was opposed on the basis of an unacceptable risk that the applicant would, if released on bail:

(a) fail to surrender into custody in accordance with the conditions of bail;

(b) endanger the safety or welfare of any person;

(c) interfere with a witness or otherwise obstruct the course of justice in any matter; or

(d) commit an offence while on bail.

51 The last three of those factors were, as the popular judicial saying has it, faintly pressed.

52 In response to the applicant's submissions regarding family hardship, the respondent contended that the applicant will not automatically be granted custody of her children if bail is granted. The respondent pointed to concerns held by Child Protection, including the exposure of both children to large commercial quantities of methylamphetamine and toxic substances in the family home, and the applicant and Lim's lack of insight regarding the potentially harmful nature of those substances. The respondent noted that the applicant's pursuit of family reunification will be dependent on a number of factors outlined by DFFH, including the applicant's capacity to provide a safe environment for her children, her engagement with Child Protection and family support services, her completion of supervised drug and alcohol screening, her capacity to prioritise her children's health and wellbeing, and the length of her sentence if she is ultimately found guilty.

53 Counsel for respondent raised concerns regarding the temporary nature of the accommodation being offered by Women's Housing Ltd. Counsel for the respondent further noted that it was unclear on the material before the Court what the frequency or nature of DHHS's supervision of the applicant would be, and as such the Court could not be assured that DHHS supervision would mitigate risk.

54 Counsel for the respondent submitted that the applicant poses an unacceptable risk of failing to surrender into custody in accordance with the conditions of bail, having regard to her status as a foreign national and limited ties to the jurisdiction. It was further submitted that the relatively strong case against the applicant created a greater incentive for her to flee the jurisdiction than some of her co-accused. The applicant was also found with almost $40,000 cash at the time of her arrest and is a member of an extensive and high level syndicate, suggesting she has the means and network to co-ordinate flight from the jurisdiction should she be granted bail.

55 The respondent contended that the applicant's only tie to the jurisdiction would be eliminated in the event that her children were returned to Malaysia to live with extended family, thereby substantially increasing her risk of flight.

(a) the applicant's potential access to false travel documents and ties to Sydney though other syndicate members;

(b) the serious nature of the charges which she faces; and

(c) her failure to offer a surety in support of bail.

57 It was further submitted that the applicant poses an unacceptable risk of committing offences on bail and endangering the safety or welfare of others by continuing to manufacture methylamphetamine. The respondent also raised concerns that the applicant may obstruct the course of justice, noting that other syndicate members have been captured on listening devices attempting to recover cash seized by police.

58 I am of the view that based on considerations primarily of delay which is anticipated to be of some 3 years, the welfare of her two children and considerations of parity, the applicant has established the existence of exceptional circumstances which would justify a grant of bail. The concession on behalf of the respondent was appropriate.

59 As to the issue of the acceptability of the risk, whilst I accept that case against the applicant appears to be a strong one, the applicant has no criminal history and is the mother of two children. She has been in custody for some 15 months and there is nothing adverse said of her conduct in that time.

60 I am not persuaded that the applicant's desire to reunite with her children when she is able to will be overwhelmed by the temptation to the flee the jurisdiction, however she would do that in the present pandemic circumstances. I accept the submission made by her counsel that the applicant is effectively "tethered" to the jurisdiction by her children and that she would be unlikely to take steps to flee this country when the likely consequence of doing so would be to lose them forever.

61 As to a surety, it is true that none is offered in this matter. That was also the case in Ning. In Boo a surety was provided but it was, on any view, a modest one of $5,000.00.

62 In my opinion a collection of appropriate conditions on the applicant's order for bail will be sufficient to reduce the implicit risk in her release to an acceptable level.

63 Having considered the evidence in this matter and the parties' submissions, I am satisfied that exceptional circumstances justifying a grant of bail had been established and, further, am satisfied that any risk can be mitigated to an acceptable level with appropriate conditions of bail.

64 Accordingly, I will grant bail and made the following orders:

(1) The said Soo Phing Chew ('the applicant') be admitted to bail upon her own undertaking and with the following conditions:

(a) Prior to her release on bail, the applicant is to arrange for the surrender of any passport or travel document of any nationality in her name or under her control to the informant Detective Senior Constable Stuart Burnham or his nominee, being an authorised member of Victoria Police, and is not to apply for any other such documents until further order;

(b) Should the applicant become legally responsible for her children, she arrange for the surrender of any passport or travel document of any nationality in her children's names to the informant or his nominee, and is not to apply for any other such documents until further order;

(c) The applicant reside at [redacted], East Saint Kilda in the state of Victoria ('place of residence');

(d) The applicant must notify the informant or his nominee at least 7 days in advance of any proposal to change to her place of residence;

(e) The applicant not leave her place of residence between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. ('curfew hours');

(f) The applicant present at the at the front door of her residence during curfew hours upon the reasonable request of the informant or his nominee;

(g) The applicant is to report to the Officer in Charge of St Kilda Police Station, or their nominee, every Monday, Wednesday and Friday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.;

(h) The applicant not contact, whether directly or indirectly, any witnesses for the prosecution, other than the informant;

(i) The applicant not contact, whether directly or indirectly, any of her co-accused, except for Kag Lai Lim and only in relation to family matters;

(j) The applicant not use or possess any narcotic substance as defined by the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic);

(k) The applicant provide the informant or his nominee with the results of any drug screens undertaken while on bail within 24 hours of the drug screen result becoming available, subject to the approval of the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing;

(l) The applicant comply with all lawful directions of the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing;

(m) The applicant is not to possess or use more than one mobile phone;

(n) The applicant is to provide the informant or his nominee with the phone number, IEMI number and any password or PIN of the mobile phone she possesses or uses within 24 hours of first having access to that phone and notify the informant or his nominee of any change of password or PIN of that mobile phone within 24 hours of that change;

(o) The applicant is to produce the mobile phone she possesses or uses for inspection upon the request of the informant or his nominee;

(p) The applicant is to provide any password or PIN for the mobile phone she possesses or uses upon the request of the informant or his nominee;

(q) The applicant not leave the State of Victoria;

(r) The applicant not attend any points of international departure;

(s) The applicant is to appear at the Magistrates' Court at Melbourne on 31 May 2021 and thereafter as directed by that Court.

[1] Contrary to s 71 of the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic).

[2] Contrary to s 71A of the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic)

[3] Contrary to s 22 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic)

[4] Contrary to s 73 of the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic).

[5] Contrary to s 194(4) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic)

[6] Contrary to s 72B of the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic).

[7] Contrary to s 71D of the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic).

[8] Re Ning [2020] VSC 609 [57]-[59].

[10] Re Boo [2020] VSC 882 [67]-[72].

[12] See item 6(a) of Schedule 1 of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) (trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence).

[13] Bail Act 1977 (Vic) ss 4AA(1), 4A(1A) and 4A(2).

[14] Ibid s 4A(3).

[15] Ibid ss 4A(4) and 4D(1)(a).

[16] Ibid s 4E(2).

[17] Ibid s 4E(3).

[18] 97 A Crim R 19, 29 (Gillard J).

[19] [2017] VSC 620 [70] (Croucher J).

[21] S 1B Bail Act 1977 (Vic)