Director of Public Prosecutions v Ho (Ruling No 10)

[2009] VSC 394

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1485 of 2006

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (COMMONWEALTH)

v

KAM TIN HO & ORS

---

JUDGE:	CUMMINS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19 March 2009
DATE OF RULING:	19 March 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Ho & Ors (Ruling No 10)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION::	[2009] VSC 394	Revised 19 October 2009

---

Criminal law and procedure – Trial – Slavery – Sex workers – Commonwealth Criminal Code s 270.3(1)(a) and (c) – Financial Transactions Reports Act 1988 (Cth) s 31(1) – Pre-trial publicity – Considerations applicable.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director	Mr D Gurvich with Mr R Davis	Director of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused Kam Tim 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
For the Australian Federal Police	Dr S Donaghue	Australian Government Solicitor

-----------------

Ruling No.10

HIS HONOUR:

1. I am quite unpersuaded that the trial should be put off beyond 20 April.  I have been most assisted by the submissions of counsel, in particular Mr Dickinson, as to the multi-media presentation being an additional matter that he relies upon beyond the printed word in The Age at the two relevant pages.

1. I must say I think the multi-media presentation in part was powerful and in one section, and only one section, was polemical.  That was the section of "no permit required" in the Work Abroad section.

1. However speaking generally, I must say the multi-media presentation did not appear to me to be unbalanced.  Certainly Federal Agent Cullen's observations did not appear to me to be inflammatory or unbalanced.  They appear to me to be measured.  None of the material of course refers to this trial, although Mr Montgomery and other counsel quite rightly have relied upon the generic similarities which certainly exist and which must be centrally borne in mind.

1. I must say I would have thought that adjourning the matter to 30 March was sufficient to meet the printed word considerations but had I made that Ruling, I would have now extended it to 20 April because of the multi-media presentation.  In any event 20 April is the date that all the parties have nominated - against the wishes of the defence, I do not mean that the defence have nominated that, I mean that that is what has been fixed upon at the request of the Crown.

1. In my view 20 April is entirely adequate to meet any impact of the multi-media presentation upon the panel.  The material is generic, and apart from the one section I have identified it is not polemical.  It certainly has impact and I take that centrally into account but my view, and the experience of the courts, is these things fade with time and I am quite satisfied that no panel will be affected by the material by 20 April.

1. I think we ought to give consideration to, as a matter of caution, saying something to the Panel about being excused if members have viewed the multi-media presentation.  Whether we do or we do not say that, I am satisfied that the fair trial of the accused can properly be fulfilled by a Panel on 20 April and accordingly that date is not vacated.

---