Director of Public Prosecutions v Ho (Ruling No 13)

[2009] VSC 397

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 May 2009
DATE OF RULING:	19 May 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Ho & Ors (Ruling No 13)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 397	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 s 31(1) – Cross examination 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.13

HIS HONOUR:

1. Mr Dickinson, I am not persuaded that I should stand the trial over further.

1. You have a substantial amount of material presently available for cross-examination.  The material which is further to that which is present in court certainly cannot be said to be totally irrelevant, at least on credit if not in substance, but it is not central to the case.  It is not central to the defence, in my view, although it may, when produced, be of assistance to the defence.

1. I do not consider it is prejudicial to the defence to require the case to go on.  Of course I will give leave for the witness to be recalled if necessary.  She lives in Australia.  That is not as good as having all the material now and doing cross-examination in one seamless entity, but in my view this is not sufficiently central or important to stand the matter over for an indefinite period.

---