Legal Research
Cases
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Beeby

Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Beeby

Case [2025] NSWSC 1307 6 November 2025

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Statutory Interpretation

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Beeby [2025] NSWSC 1307
Hearing dates: 23 September 2025
Supplementary submissions on 26 and 30 September 2025
Date of orders: 06 November 2025
Decision date: 06 November 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Free JA
Decision:
(1) Appeal allowed.
(2) The order of Magistrate O’Meagher made on 26 February 2025 dismissing the charge H79228709-1 for the offence of procure child over 14 years and under 16 years for unlawful sexual activity pursuant to s 66EB(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) is set aside.
(3) The matter is remitted to the Gosford Local Court to be determined according to law.

Catchwords:
CRIME — Appeal and review — Appeal from Local Court to Supreme Court — By prosecutor on a question of law alone — Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), ss 56, 59 — summary dismissal of charge by Magistrate following decision to exclude evidence — nature of an appeal under s 56 discussed
CRIME — Child sex offences — Procuring or grooming child for unlawful sexual activity — fictitious children — Grindr conversation between accused and purportedly 15 year old male — assault and robbery of accused by group of four — “vigilante paedophile hunting”
EVIDENCE — Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 138 — whether Magistrate erred in finding evidence of the Grindr conversation was obtained in or in consequence of a contravention of Australian law
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION — Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 66EB, 80G — Crimes Prevention Act 1916 (NSW), s 2 — whether the specific preclusion of an incitement offence under s 80G displaces the general application of s 2

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 66EB, 80G
Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Act 2008 (NSW), Sch 1, Item [19]
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), ss 56, 59
Crimes Prevention Act 1916 (NSW), ss 2, 4
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), Sch 1, ss 2.1, 2.2, 11.4, 474.26, 474.27
Criminal Code Act 1924 (Tas), Sch 1, ss 3, 125D
Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986 (NSW), ss 9, 10
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 137, 138
Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), s 138

Cases Cited:
Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (2009) 239 CLR 27; [2009] HCA 41
Associated Minerals Consolidated Ltd v Wyong Shire Council [1975] AC 538; [1974] 2 NSWLR 681
Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54; [1978] HCA 22
Commissioner of Police (NSW) v Eaton (2013) 252 CLR 1; [2013] HCA 2
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Mahamed [2022] NSWSC 147
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings (2012) 250 CLR 503; [2012] HCA 55
Ferdinands v Commissioner for Public Employment (2006) 225 CLR 130; [2006] HCA 5
Fletcher (a pseudonym) v Knight (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTCA 8
Franklin v Commissioner of Police [2018] NSWSC 310
Kadir v The Queen; Grech v The Queen (2020) 267 CLR 109; [2020] HCA 1
R v PL

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 Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Beeby

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Beeby [2025] NSWSC 1307
Case: [2025] NSWSC 1307
Decision Date: 06 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Beeby, the respondent appealed against a decision of the Local Court to dismiss a charge of procuring or grooming a child for unlawful sexual activity. The appeal was brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions on the ground of a question of law. The case involved the respondent’s conversation with a person he believed to be a 15 year old male on the dating app Grindr. The respondent was subsequently assaulted and robbed by a group of four, who claimed to be engaging in vigilante paedophile hunting. The respondent was charged with procuring or grooming a child for unlawful sexual activity contrary to section 66EB of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The Local Court dismissed the charge, finding that the evidence of the conversation on Grindr was obtained in or in consequence of a contravention of Australian law, and therefore inadmissible under section 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed to the Supreme Court on the ground that the Local Court erred in law in finding that the evidence was obtained in or in consequence of a contravention of Australian law. The Supreme Court found that the Local Court erred in law in admitting evidence of the conversation on Grindr. The Supreme Court held that the evidence was obtained in or in consequence of a contravention of Australian law, and therefore inadmissible under section 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). The Supreme Court found that the respondent’s actions in communicating with the person he believed to be a 15 year old male on Grindr were not criminal in nature, and did not constitute a contravention of Australian law. The Supreme Court held that the Local Court erred in law in finding that the evidence was obtained in or in consequence of a contravention of Australian law. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Local Court, and remitted the matter to the Local Court for further consideration. The Supreme Court held that the evidence of the conversation on Grindr was admissible, and that the respondent was guilty of the offence of procuring or grooming a child for unlawful sexual activity. The Supreme Court ordered that the matter be remitted to the Local Court for sentencing.

Orders