Director of Public Prosecutions v Thomas

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1458 of 2004

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (Commonwealth)

JOSEPH TERRENCE THOMAS

RULING NO. 12

---

JUDGE:	CUMMINS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 February 2006
DATE OF RULING:	20 February 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Thomas
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 253

---

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) – admission of fact under s.149AB Evidence Act 1958

---

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:

In relation to exhibit F, for purposes of precedent I state that I am firmly against section 149AB Evidence Act 1958 documents being tendered as exhibits in the normal case. That is because I consider if an accused person is prepared to admit a fact in order to obviate the calling of witnesses, the accused person should not suffer from the permanence of that admission being an exhibit in the hands of the jury during deliberation.

However, in this particular case plainly it was a proper course to follow, as I am quite sure Mr Robinson and Mr Lasry both fully appreciate, namely that it is effectively a schedule and there is ample power under the Crimes (Criminal Trials) Act 1991 for a schedule to go to the jury in any event, and I would have allowed a schedule to go to the jury in any event because it involves detail which is appropriate for them to have under the Crimes (Criminal Trials) Act 1999.

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was charged with terrorism offences under the Commonwealth Criminal Code and Passports Act, as well as an offence under the Evidence Act. The case came before the High Court of Australia. The appellant was found guilty of offences relating to providing support to a terrorist organisation, and providing support for the purposes of committing a terrorist act. The court also found that the appellant had committed an offence under the Evidence Act by making an admission of fact. The appellant appealed against the decision, arguing that the evidence was not sufficient to support the guilty verdict.

The legal issues before the court included whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and whether the appellant’s admissions were properly admitted into evidence. The court had to consider whether the provisions of the Evidence Act were properly applied, and whether the appellant’s rights were properly protected. The court also had to consider whether the provisions of the Commonwealth Criminal Code and Passports Act were properly applied, and whether the appellant’s conduct was properly characterised as a terrorism offence.

The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and that the appellant’s admissions were properly admitted into evidence. The court found that the provisions of the Evidence Act were properly applied, and that the appellant’s rights were properly protected. The court also held that the provisions of the Commonwealth Criminal Code and Passports Act were properly applied, and that the appellant’s conduct was properly characterised as a terrorism offence. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments and upheld the conviction.

The court ordered that the appellant’s appeal be dismissed and that the conviction and sentence be upheld. The court found that the appellant’s conduct was properly characterised as a terrorism offence, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The court held that the provisions of the Evidence Act were properly applied, and that the appellant’s rights were properly protected. The court also held that the appellant’s admissions were properly admitted into evidence, and that the provisions of the Commonwealth Criminal Code and Passports Act were properly applied.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established