Trinh v R [2016] NSWCCA 110

Trinh v R [2016] NSWCCA 110

Bail was refused because the seriousness and number of the fraud-related charges, the strength of the Crown case, the large amounts involved, the applicant's history of breaches of bail and parole, the evidence of false identities and capacity to evade detection, and the inadequacy of the proposed parental supervision and security established unacceptable risks that the applicant would fail to appear and would commit further serious offences. The delay before trial and difficulties in preparing the defence while in custody were significant but did not outweigh those risks, particularly in light of evidence that the applicant was expected to receive access to a laptop in custody.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Bail Release Application / Further Release Application to the Court of Criminal Appeal After Bail Was Refused by the Local Court and by a Judge of the Supreme Court
Outcome
Bail refused.
Legal Topics
['release Application' 'court of Criminal Appeal Jurisdiction' 'unacceptable Risk' 'failure to Appear' 'commission of Further Serious Offences' 'strength of Crown Case' 'delay Before Trial' 'preparation of Defence' 'fraud Offences']
['criminal Law' 'bail' 'criminal Procedure'] ['release Application' 'court of Criminal Appeal Jurisdiction' 'unacceptable Risk' 'failure to Appear' 'commission of Further Serious Offences' 'strength of Crown Case' 'delay Before Trial' 'preparation of Defence' 'fraud Offences']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Bail Release Application / Further Release Application to the Court of Criminal Appeal After Bail Was Refused by the Local Court and by a Judge of the Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal had power under s 67(1)(e) of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) to hear the release application after a bail decision had been made by the Supreme Court.' 'Whether the hearing was a fresh or de novo consideration of bail and the extent to which findings from the earlier Supreme Court hearing could be considered.' "Whether the applicant's proposed bail conditions, including residence with his parents, security, curfew and electronic monitoring, adequately addressed the bail concerns." 'Whether there was an unacceptable risk that the applicant would fail to appear or commit further serious offences if released.' "Whether delay before trial and the applicant's need to prepare his defence outweighed the bail concerns."]

Ratio Decidendi

Bail was refused because the seriousness and number of the fraud-related charges, the strength of the Crown case, the large amounts involved, the applicant's history of breaches of bail and parole, the evidence of false identities and capacity to evade detection, and the inadequacy of the proposed parental supervision and security established unacceptable risks that the applicant would fail to appear and would commit further serious offences. The delay before trial and difficulties in preparing the defence while in custody were significant but did not outweigh those risks, particularly in light of evidence that the applicant was expected to receive access to a laptop in custody.

Court Disposition

Bail refused.

Orders

  • ['Bail refused.']