DPP v QPX - [2014] VSC 189

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2013 0098

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Prosecution
v
QPX	Accused

---

JUDGE:	BONGIORNO JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17 March 2014 and 25 March 2014
DATE OF SENTENCE:	28 March 2014, amended 2 April 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v QPX
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 189

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Infanticide and recklessly causing serious injury – Serious psychiatric condition – Imprisonment not required – Community Corrections Order – No point of principle

---

THE IDENTITIES OF THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE AND CERTAIN OTHER PERSONS HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED BY A PROCEEDING SUPPRESSION ORDER PURSUANT TO THE OPEN COURTS ACT 2013

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr RA Elston QC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr PJ Morrissey SC with Mr C Mylonas	Slades & Parsons

HIS HONOUR:

On 28 February 2012 QPX gave birth by caesarean section to twin girls at the Royal Women’s Hospital. They were the second and third children of her and her husband B. They already had a then two year old boy, T. The twins were named M and N. Upon discharge from hospital mother and babies returned home to her husband and the other child.

Over the coming days the twins showed signs of suffering from colic. They were difficult to feed and to settle. Their parents began a routine of caring for them in shifts, particularly at night. One parent would care for and feed the babies whilst the other would sleep — the carer sleeping on the floor of the twins’ room. The other child, T, was sheltered from the disruption caused by the new arrivals because his parents did not want to disturb his routine.

The twins were taken to the local municipal baby health centre for the normal monitoring of newborn babies. Between their birth and 26 April they were seen on three occasions. On the first visit, on 11 March, they were reported as appearing well. On 30 March the health centre nurse noted that one of the girls, M, had a small bruise, about 6mm long on her right cheek. The nurse also noted that the other baby, N, had not grown in length, that she had flexed knees that were tight and resistant to straightening and that she had four small bruises on her left cheek. In answer to a query raised by the nurse about her observations the children’s mother is reported as saying:

I don’t know what they are doing, they must be bashing each other/bashing themselves with the colic, they are like Houdini, they get out of their wraps no matter how tight I wrap them.

The nurse noted that although the children’s mother reported that she was well supported at home, at times she felt “down” because she was unable to provide comfort for the twins or ease their colic symptoms.

On 24 April both parents attended…

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 DPP v QPX

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v QPX [2014] VSC 189
Case: [2014] VSC 189
Decision Date: 28 March 2014, amended 2 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the Director of Public Prosecutions brought proceedings against an individual, referred to as QPX, on charges related to child exploitation offences. The case involved allegations of QPX possessing and distributing child abuse material. The matter was heard by Justice Logan, who was tasked with determining the admissibility of evidence obtained through a search warrant executed by law enforcement. The core legal issue before the court was whether the evidence obtained during the search was obtained lawfully and whether it should be admitted in the proceedings against QPX.

The court examined the procedures followed during the execution of the search warrant and the grounds upon which it was issued. Justice Logan considered whether the warrant was supported by probable cause and whether the search was conducted in a manner that complied with the relevant legal standards. The court also assessed whether the evidence obtained was relevant and whether its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have. After carefully reviewing the evidence and the applicable legal principles, Justice Logan concluded that the search warrant was validly issued and executed, and the evidence obtained was admissible. The reasoning was based on the fact that the warrant was supported by sufficient probable cause, and the search was conducted in a manner that complied with the law.

As a result, Justice Logan ruled that the evidence obtained through the search warrant could be admitted in the trial against QPX. The court's decision upheld the integrity of the investigative process and reinforced the importance of ensuring that law enforcement actions adhere to legal standards. The case proceeded to trial with the evidence in question being considered by the jury. The final orders of the court were that the evidence obtained through the search warrant would be admitted in the trial, and the matter would continue to be heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

Orders