Director of Public Prosecutions v Ho (Ruling No 18)

[2009] VSC 401

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:	15 June 2009
DATE OF RULING:	15 June 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Ho & Ors (Ruling No 18)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 401	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) – Evidence – Tripodi v R (1961) 104 CLR 1.

---

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.18

HIS HONOUR:

1. I uphold Mr Dickinson's submission that both the specified conversations, that is to say on 14 August 2004 at 1958 hours at p.6348, and on 20 September 2004 at 1923 hours at 7046 do not fall within the Tripodi[1] principle in relation to the first accused.  They are, of course, admissible in relation to the third accused.  I agree with Mr Gurvich that the other conversations, in effect, book-ending these particular ones, are directly admissible against the first accused where he is a party, but these two conversations I consider do not fall within the Tripodi principle, and accordingly they are not admissible in relation to the first accused, as correctly has been contended by Mr Dickinson.

   [1](1961) 104 C.L.R.1.

---