Director of Public Prosecutions v Ho and anor (Ruling No.19)

[2009] VSC 449

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1485 of 2006

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (COMMONWEALTH)

v

KAM TIN HO & ANOR

---

JUDGE:	CUMMINS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 June 2009
DATE OF RULING:	16 June 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Ho & anor (Ruling No.19)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 449	Revised 19 October 2009

---

Criminal law and procedure – slavery – Criminal Code (Commonwealth) s 270.3(1)(a) – jury trial – procedure.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director	Mr D Gurvich with Mr R Davis	Director of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused Kam Tin Ho	Mr J Dickinson SC	Theo Magazis & Associates
For the Accused Ho Kam Ho	Mr J Montgomery SC	Slades & Parsons
For the Accused Hoo	Mr J Bisas	Michael J Gleeson & Associates Pty Ltd
For the Accused Rahardjo	Mr L Hartnett	Robert Stary & Associates

----------

Ruling No 19

HIS HONOUR:

1. In view of the fact that all defence counsel submit that it is not an appropriate course for the jury to be required to attend court for a specified purpose, identified by the judge from amongst the general evidence, I think I should accede to the defence’s view.

1. I commend Mr Dickinson's analysis because I would have thought it would have assisted his client to have them go through now rather than next week, the telephone intercepts, in view of his final address; but I think that matters of principle are more important than matters of strategic positioning, and I think in the end it is appropriate to look at the matter as a matter of principle.

1. I certainly understand what Mr Brand, Mr Bisas and Mr Hartnett say, and I think in the circumstances I ought to approach the matter holistically and I ought not to isolate an area of evidence and then require the jury to look at it, and accordingly, I shall not do so.

1. I might add that the matter I raised with counsel was because I thought it was a sensible and party-neutral proposal.  I still think it is, but in view of the circumstance that defence counsel oppose it, I ought to accede to the views of defence counsel, and, of course with no lessening of Mr Dickinson's submission, in particular Mr Brand, Mr Bisas and Mr Hartnett because they have yet to address, and I think thus I ought to accede to it.