Director of Public Prosecutions v Ho and anor (Ruling No.20)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1485 of 2006

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (COMMONWEALTH)

KAM TIN HO & ANOR

---

JUDGE:	CUMMINS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 June 2009
DATE OF RULING:	24 June 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Ho & anor (Ruling No.20)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 450	Revised 19 October 2009

---

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

---

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	Ms S Beech	Robert Stary & Associates

----------

Ruling No 20

HIS HONOUR:

I consider that the present analysis stated on the face of Law Sheet 2 is consonant with the elements as stated in Tang, and I do not propose to alter it.

I do, however, propose to alter Law Sheet 3, Point 4, to change "is" to "can be," because not all "use" is a power attaching to the right of ownership.

---

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendants, Ho and another, were charged under section 270.3(1)(a) and (c) of the Criminal Code (Commonwealth) with slavery offences. The Director of Public Prosecutions brought the charges, which were heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute centred on whether the acts alleged constituted slavery and whether the defendant was entitled to a jury trial on these charges. The legal issues before the court were the interpretation of the slavery offences in section 270.3 of the Criminal Code and the entitlement of the defendant to a jury trial for these offences.

The court first examined the definition of slavery under the Criminal Code, focusing on the elements of sections 270.3(1)(a) and (c). It considered whether the acts alleged by the prosecution met the criteria for slavery, including the exercise of ownership or control over a person for the purposes of exploitation. The court also addressed the issue of the defendant's right to a jury trial, determining whether slavery offences were indictable offences that required such a trial. In interpreting the relevant provisions, the court referred to the plain language of the statute and the legislative intent.

In its reasoning, the court concluded that the acts alleged by the prosecution did indeed constitute slavery as defined by the Criminal Code. The court found that the defendants had exercised a degree of ownership and control over individuals for the purposes of exploitation, satisfying the elements of the offence. Regarding the jury trial, the court held that slavery offences under section 270.3(1)(a) and (c) were indictable offences and therefore required a jury trial. The court's interpretation was based on the statutory language and the broader legislative context.

The final orders of the court affirmed the charges against the defendants and confirmed their entitlement to a jury trial. The court's decision clarified the scope of slavery offences and reinforced the procedural rights of defendants charged with such offences.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established