Director of Public Prosecutions v Thomas
[2006] VSC 254
•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. 13
---
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 254 | |
---
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).
---
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:
I consider it is proper and appropriate and publicly fair process to inquire of the defence at the conclusion of the prosecution case what course does the defence propose to follow. I would not and I never have asked the question in personal terms, namely, "What course does the accused propose to follow?", let alone anything more personal or particular than that. The inquiry is generic and categorical and follows strictly the words of section 418(d) Crimes Act 1958. I am firmly of the view that a jury as judges are entitled to know that they are taking part in a legitimate process and not some railroading of a citizen, a fellow citizen, because the jury are all sitting as judges having been drawn as citizens.
I consider that is part of proper public transparent process. Accordingly I propose to inquire as I always have of the defence in the presence of the jury in a non-personal way as I have stated.
--------------------------------------------------
0
0
0