Director of Public Prosecutions v Woolf (Ruling No 1)

[2013] VCC 1082

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

Case No. CR-12-02001

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
v
URIEL WOOLF	Accused

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE CANNON
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29  August 2013
DATE OF RULING:	29  August 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Woolf (Ruling No 1)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VCC 1082

RULING

---

Subject:  CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords:            Evidence – admissibility of evidence

Legislation Cited:     Criminal Procedure Act 2009, s342

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Mr T Danos	Craig Hyland Solicitor for Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr N B Batten	PICA Criminal Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

1       Having considered the submissions that have been made by the learned prosecutor and Mr Danos and in view of the Basha evidence that has been called, the fact that there is no further material by way of Facebook communication which would advance the application made by the defence, for the reasons advanced in the learned prosecutor’s submissions, I am of the view that the questions sought to be asked by way of cross-examination, especially taking into account what Mr Danos says the purposes such cross-examination would be targeted at, are caught by s342 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009.

2       Given the point that is sought to be made by the defence, at the end of the day, as to the complainant’s knowledge of matters sexual, the sexual activity which the questions seek to capture is not such that I would allow the questions for the reasons enunciated by the learned prosecutor; that is, I am not satisfied that the evidence has substantial relevance to a fact in issue in this case, namely the credibility of the complainant, when she makes allegations of a sexual nature against the accused.        

3 For the reasons advanced by the learned prosecutor, I am of the view that, pursuant to s342, the questions are caught by those provisions, and having considered s349, I rule that the questions are of such a nature that the evidence does not have substantial relevance to a fact in issue in this case, in circumstances where the complainant is 15 years old when she makes the allegations of a sexual nature to the police.

4 If I am wrong about that, then for the reasons further advanced by the learned prosecutor, I am of the view that the questions, even if not captured by s342, do not have substantial relevance to the credibility of the complainant, and taking into account the other provisions referred to in terms of questioning of a complainant of tender years, this adds to my view that the questions would not be admissible in any event.

- - -