Director of Public Prosecutions v Ho (Ruling No 12)

[2009] VSC 396

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:	14 May 2009
DATE OF RULING:	14 May 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Ho & Ors (Ruling No 12)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 396	Revised 19 October 2009

---

Criminal law and procedure – Trial – Slavery – Sexual – Sex workers – Commonwealth Criminal Code s 270.3(1)(a) and (c) – Financial Transactions Reports Act 1988 (Cth) s 31(1) – Evidence in chief of subject.

---

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

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

Ruling No.12

HIS HONOUR:

1. I am not persuaded either as matter of law, or certainly as a matter of discretion, that you are entitled to lead that she thought she would be "chased".  I think that is prejudicial and not founded upon the evidence.  So far as you have elicited, albeit not intentionally, that "I also knew that they would follow me", I am not persuaded that that is admissible, and if it is, I am not persuaded that it ought to be led in the exercise of discretion.  I think it is too tenuous and speculative and potentially prejudicial. 

1. If you can lay the foundation for a direct statement by one of the accused, well and good, lay it.  If it is simply a matter of conclusion I consider the evidence as it presently stands is not admissible.

---