R v Van Thi Kanh PHAM [2020] NSWSC 1951
The Court refused bail because the medical, forensic and circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the serious charges, including on a joint criminal enterprise basis, and the applicant's overseas connections, the seriousness of the offences, and her capacity to contact the victim or other witnesses created serious concerns of failure to appear and interference with witnesses, amounting to an unacceptable risk.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 15 December 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Bail Application / Application for Bail Before Trial
- Outcome
- Bail refused
- Legal Topics
- ['unacceptable Risk' 'failure to Appear' 'interference With Witnesses' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'child Assault Allegations' 'grievous Bodily Harm']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Bail Application / Application for Bail Before Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether bail should be granted to the applicant.' 'Whether the evidence, including circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to support the alleged joint criminal enterprise.' 'Whether the applicant posed a serious concern of failure to appear.' 'Whether the applicant posed a serious risk of interference with the victim or other witnesses.']
Ratio Decidendi
The Court refused bail because the medical, forensic and circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the serious charges, including on a joint criminal enterprise basis, and the applicant's overseas connections, the seriousness of the offences, and her capacity to contact the victim or other witnesses created serious concerns of failure to appear and interference with witnesses, amounting to an unacceptable risk.
Court Disposition
Bail refused
Orders
- ['Bail refused']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment