Director of Public Prosecutions v Ho (Ruling No 10) Summary

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1485 of 2006

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (COMMONWEALTH)

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

---

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Director of Public Prosecutions v Ho (Ruling No 10) involved a criminal trial in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the Director of Public Prosecutions sought to prosecute Ho on charges related to slavery and trafficking. The defendant was accused of exploiting sex workers and subjecting them to conditions of slavery, contrary to sections 270.3(1)(a) and (c) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. Additionally, there were charges under section 31(1) of the Financial Transactions Reports Act 1988 (Cth), which deals with financial transactions associated with criminal activities. The central issue before the court was whether the extensive pre-trial publicity surrounding the case would prejudice the defendant's right to a fair trial, given the sensitive nature of the allegations and the potential impact on the jury's impartiality.

The court had to navigate the delicate balance between the public's right to know and the defendant's right to a fair trial. It considered the severity of the allegations, the potential impact of media coverage on public perception, and the measures that could be taken to mitigate any prejudicial effects. The court examined whether the publicity was inflammatory or merely informative, and whether it was possible to empanel a jury that could set aside any preconceptions and decide the case based solely on the evidence presented in court. The court also assessed whether specific measures, such as jury sequestration, change of venue, or voir dire, were necessary to ensure a fair trial.

In its ruling, the court determined that the publicity had the potential to prejudice the fairness of the trial, given the sensitive and inflammatory nature of the allegations. The court found that the extensive media coverage had created a significant risk that potential jurors would come to court with preconceived notions about the defendant's guilt, which could undermine the presumption of innocence. The court concluded that the publicity had indeed tainted the pool of potential jurors, necessitating the implementation of specific measures to safeguard the defendant's right to a fair trial. These measures included the use of voir dire to assess the extent of the publicity's impact on potential jurors, the possibility of sequestering the jury, and the exploration of alternative venues for the trial to mitigate any prejudicial effects.

The final orders of the court included the implementation of stringent measures to ensure the defendant's right to a fair trial was upheld. This involved conducting a thorough voir dire to determine the extent of the publicity's influence on potential jurors and assessing their ability to remain impartial. The court also reserved the right to sequester the jury and consider changing the venue of the trial to a location less affected by the pre-trial publicity. These steps were deemed necessary to mitigate any potential prejudice and to ensure that the trial would proceed in a manner consistent with the principles of natural justice.

Director of Public Prosecutions v Ho (Ruling No 10)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established