DC v Queensland Police Service

Link copied
Case Copied 24 min read

MAGISTRATES COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

DC v Queensland Police Service [2018] QMC 3

PARTIES:

DC
(Applicant/Defendant)

v

Queensland Police
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

MAG-00128716/16(5)

DIVISION:

Magistrates Court

PROCEEDING:

Application to cross-examine a witness in committal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Mt Isa

DELIVERED ON:

23 February 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Mt Isa

HEARING DATE:

15 December 2017

MAGISTRATE:

J  Morton

ORDER:

The application is granted on grounds 3 and 8 only.  The application is refused on grounds 1, 2, 4 and 7.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW-PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE-

COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS-APPLICATION TO CROSS EXAMINE WITNESSES-onus on defendant – substantial reasons – interests of justice

Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s83A (5AA), s 110B

COUNSEL:

C Grant (applicant)

Sgt V Cooper  (Qld Police Service)

SOLICITORS:

Qld Police Service for the Prosecution

Telford Lawyers for applicant

  1. The Defendant is charged with three counts of indecent treatment of a girl under the age of 16 on various dates between 31 December 1972 and 1 January 1974, 31 December 1973 and 16 April 1974 and on unknown dates between 12 August 1976 and 31 August 1976. The Defendant is also charged with 10 counts of rape on various dates. All charges relate to the same Complainant. The dates of the alleged charges arise from when Defendant was both a juvenile and an adult.  At the time of the alleged offending, the complainant was also a child and an adult.

  1. In general terms, the Prosecution case is that the Complainant was sexually assaulted by the Defendant from around about 1973 to 1983 in three locations – Gregory Street, Cloncurry, Seymour Street Cloncurry and 10 Mensa Street Sunset Mount Isa.

  1. The complaint of the alleged sexual offending was not made until 2013. The background of the complaint being made is alleged to be related to an incident where there was a birthday party celebration for the Defendant’s son, which was held at the Brother’s Leagues Club in Townsville on 24 August 2013. The Complainant attended that birthday party after having been at the races that day. She attended and has described herself as drunk, and said she obtained permission from her “nanna” and the Defendant to see if she could still attend which they both agreed.

  1. It is whilst at this birthday party celebration that the Complainant saw her ex-husband and his new wife and family. There was some allegation of death stares being sent back and forth from both parties, her ex-husband’s new wife and new wife’s daughter. The Complainant alleges that she interacted with numerous family members throughout the night.

  1. At some stage during the night, there was a dispute between the Complainant and the Defendant as to why her ex-husband and his new wife and family were present. The Defendant is alleged to have said the words “I invited them”. It is alleged at that stage the Complainant alleges “that with those words I transported back to the time you started abusing me”.[1]

    [1] See Statement 24 November 2013 at paragraph 44.

  1. In her statement, the complainant states “The message…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read DC v Queensland Police Service and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2018] QMC 3
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an application by the defendant, DC, for leave to cross-examine witnesses in committal proceedings against them. The defendant was charged with multiple criminal offences, including assault occasioning bodily harm and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. The Queensland Police Service was the prosecuting party. The court was required to determine whether the defendant had established a substantial reason for the leave to cross-examine the witnesses and whether granting the application would be in the interests of justice.

The legal issues before the court were the onus on the defendant to demonstrate substantial reasons for the leave to cross-examine witnesses and whether granting the application would serve the interests of justice. The court considered the nature and gravity of the charges, the evidence already adduced, and the potential impact of the cross-examination on the trial. The court also considered the rights of the complainants and the public interest in the administration of justice.

The court found that the defendant had not established substantial reasons for leave to cross-examine the witnesses on grounds 1, 2, 4, and 7 of the application. However, the court found that the defendant had established substantial reasons for leave to cross-examine the witnesses on grounds 3 and 8. The court found that the cross-examination was necessary to test the credibility of the witnesses and to challenge the evidence that had been adduced. The court also found that granting the application on grounds 3 and 8 would be in the interests of justice. The court refused the application on grounds 1, 2, 4, and 7 as the defendant had not established substantial reasons for leave to cross-examine the witnesses on those grounds.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is granted on grounds 3 and 8 only. The application is refused on grounds 1, 2, 4 and 7.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.