Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Beeby

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.