Director of Public Prosecutions v Thomas

[2006] VSC 255

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1458 of 2004

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (Commonwealth)

v

JOSEPH TERRENCE THOMAS

RULING NO. 14

---

JUDGE:	CUMMINS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 February 2006
DATE OF RULING:	22 February 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Thomas
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 255

---

Criminal law and procedure – terrorism offences – Commonwealth Criminal Code s.102.6(1) and s.102.7(1) – Passports Act 1938 s.9A(1)(e) – final addresses – relevance and use of evidence.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director	Mr N. T. Robinson with Ms L. Taylor	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr L. Lasry QC with Mr M. Taft	Robert Stary and Associates
For the Commonwealth Attorney-General (by leave)	Mr R.Tracey QC with Dr S. Donaghue	Australian Government Solicitor

HIS HONOUR:

1. I consider that both uses put by the prosecution in this case of the Al Farooq training camp material are permissible in law.  Plainly the first one is, as Mr Lasry properly conceded, namely it goes to the question of the accused's knowledge of al Qaeda. 

1. On the second matter as to the question of resource, I consider Mr Lasry's arguments are erroneous in two respects.  First whilst it is true that Mr Goba did not, himself, observe Mr Thomas undergoing military training, Mr Goba gave clear evidence of the nature of the camp including the method whereby one was admitted to it after waiting outside, and like material.  This was a military training camp.  It was not a holiday resort where you might or might not join in physical exercises or otherwise lie around a swimming pool.  In my view, the nature of the camp being a closed military camp on the evidence of Mr Goba is relevant.

1. Second, the argument of Mr Lasry as to the chronological fact of it being one year earlier I certainly understand, but I consider that is a matter of weight for the jury rather than a matter of admissibility.  Accordingly, I consider both uses sought by the prosecution to the jury in its address are permissible.

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