| 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:
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.
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.
---
- AGLC
- Director of Public Prosecutions v Ho (Ruling No 12) [2009] VSC 396
- Case
- [2009] VSC 396
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the court had to address centred on the interpretation and application of the relevant sections of the Commonwealth Criminal Code and the Financial Transactions Reports Act. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the evidence presented in chief, which implicated Ho in slavery offences under section 270.3(1)(a) and (c), and breaches of financial regulations under section 31(1), was admissible and sufficient to proceed to trial. The court also had to examine the challenges posed by the nature of the evidence, particularly given that it involved sensitive and potentially prejudicial material.
The court held that the evidence presented in chief was admissible and sufficient to support the charges against Ho. The court reasoned that the nature of the offences and the specific provisions of the Criminal Code and Financial Transactions Reports Act allowed for such evidence to be considered at this stage of the proceedings. The court further found that the evidence provided a solid foundation for the prosecution to proceed, ensuring that the rights of the accused were adequately protected while balancing the public interest in addressing these serious allegations. The court's ruling allowed the case to move forward to trial, ensuring that all parties would have the opportunity to present their cases fully.
The court made an order that the evidence presented in chief would be admitted and that the case would proceed to trial. This ruling was significant in setting a precedent for future cases involving similar offences and evidence, ensuring that the integrity of the legal process was maintained while addressing the complexities of such serious criminal allegations.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.