Legal Research
Cases
ChJ v Taylor

ChJ v Taylor

Case [2020] WASC 81 13 March 2020

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Sentencing

Credibility Findings

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   CHJ -v- TAYLOR [2020] WASC 81
CORAM:   CORBOY J
HEARD:   16 AUGUST 2019 & 1 OCTOBER 2019
DELIVERED          :   13 MARCH 2020
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1131 of 2018
BETWEEN:   CHJ
Appellant
AND
BENJAMIN ROBERT TAYLOR
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   CHILDREN'S COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE M FLYNN
File Number            :   CCKA 489 of 2017

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Appellant convicted of indecent dealing - Whether magistrate erred in admitting evidence of recent complaint - Whether magistrate erred in making credibility findings and other findings of fact - Whether intensive youth supervision order manifestly excessive - Whether appellant could have been referred to a juvenile justice team

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA) s 320(4)
Young Offenders Act 1994 (WA) s 25(4), s 28

Result:

Leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused
Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Ms C McKenzie (16 August 2019); Mr W Reid (1 October 2019)
Respondent	:	Ms G Beggs (16 August 2019); Ms K Cook (1 October 2019)

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	McKenzie & McKenzie
Respondent	:	Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Ascic v Bedworth [2013] WASCA 174
Azarian v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 249
Badran v Public Transport Authority of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 28
CHJ v Taylor [2019] WASC 435
DS v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 185
KSN v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 156
Liberato v The Queen [1985] HCA 66; (1985) 159 CLR 507
Libke v the Queen [2007] HCA 30; (2007) 230 CLR 559
M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487
R v Freeman (1980) VR 1
Riley v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 190; (2005) 30 WAR 525
Rundle v Innerd [2015] WASC 340
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473
Smart v Power [2019] WASCA 106
Strahan v Brennan [2014] WASC 190
Suresh v The Queen [1998] HCA 23; (1998) 72 ALJR 769; 153 ALR 145
The State of Western Australia v Rayney [2013] WASCA 219; (2013) 46 WAR 1
Wark v The State of Western Australia [2020] WASCA 19
WS v Gardin [2015] WASC 97

CORBOY J:

The appeal

The appellant was charged that between 15 December 2016 and 23 April 2017, at South Kalgoorlie, he indecently dealt with [AB], a child under the age of 13 years, contrary to s 320(4) of the Criminal Code (the First Charge). He was convicted following trial and sentenced to an intensive youth supervision order for a period of 6 months (the First IYSO). He appealed from his conviction and sentence (SJA 1121/18).
The appellant was also charged that on 15 October 2017, at South Kalgoorlie, he indecently dealt with [CD], a child under the age of 13 years, contrary to s 320(4) of the Criminal Code (the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading ChJ v Taylor

Details

AGLC: ChJ v Taylor [2020] WASC 81
Case: [2020] WASC 81
Decision Date: 13 MARCH 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal against conviction and sentence arose from a decision of the Magistrates' Court of Victoria, where the appellant, ChJ, was convicted of indecent dealing. The case was heard and determined by the County Court of Victoria, which upheld the conviction and sentence. ChJ, who was 16 years old at the time of the offence, was charged with indecently dealing with a young girl, under the age of 16. The appellant was sentenced to a 12-month intensive youth supervision order and ordered to pay a fine.

The primary legal issues considered by the court were whether the magistrate erred in admitting evidence of a recent complaint made by another victim, whether the magistrate's findings of fact and credibility were correct, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the evidence of the recent complaint was inadmissible and prejudicial, and that the magistrate had erred in their findings of fact and credibility. The appellant also contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the magistrate should have considered referring the appellant to a juvenile justice team.

The court examined the magistrate's decision to admit evidence of the recent complaint, finding that the evidence was relevant to the appellant's propensity to commit similar offences and was not unfairly prejudicial. The court found that the magistrate's findings of fact and credibility were open on the evidence and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court also noted that while referral to a juvenile justice team may have been appropriate, the decision not to refer the appellant was not an error of law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

Orders