Director of Public Prosecutions v Ho (Ruling No 18)
[2009] VSC 401
•15 June 2009
| 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:
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.
---
0
0
0