Director of Public Prosecutions v Thomas
[2006] VSC 253
•20 February 2006
| 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. 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.
-------------------------------------------------
0
0
0