Police v Adel Benjamin Abraham

[2011] NSWLC 6

Local Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Police v Adel Benjamin ABRAHAM [2011] NSWLC 6
Hearing dates:	11 February 2011
Decision date:	31 March 2011
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Magistrate Lerve
Decision:	There is a prima facie case against the accused
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - prima facie case - indecent assault - elements of offence - requirement of evidence of sexual gratification
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Procedure Act 1986, s 294A Evidence Act 1995, ss 60, 66, 108
Cases Cited:	Crowe v Graham (1968) 121 CLR 375 Fitzgerald v Kennard (1995) 84 A Crim R 333 Graham v The Queen (1998) 195 CLR 606 Harkin v R (1989) 38 A Crim R 296 May v O'Sullivan (1955) 92 CLR 654 Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Police Adel Benjamin Abraham (the accused)
Representation:	Police Prosecutor Sgt. D. Brand Accused appeared unrepresented
File Number(s):	2010/304823

JUDGMENT

1. The accused stands charged for that he:

"On 23 December 2009, at Wagga Wagga in the State of New South Wales did assault [the complainant] and at the time of the assault committed an act of indecency on [the complainant], (namely) taking hold of her hand, rubbing her palm stating, 'do you know what this means? It means I want to have sex with you'".

1. The charge was not brought until 8 September 2010, that being the date on which the Court Attendance Notice was created. According to the Service Copy of the CAN that is with the papers, it was personally served on the accused on that same date.

1. A plea of Not Guilty was entered on 14 October 2010 when the matter first came before the Court. Because of local administrative arrangements with the Local Court in the area (the regular Magistrate at Wagga Wagga was part heard in a matter at Albury), I heard this matter at the Wagga Wagga Local Court on 11 February 2011. The accused was and remains unrepresented. He lives in Melbourne. At the conclusion of the prosecution case the prosecutor fairly and appropriately indicated (without making any concessions) that there may be an issue as to whether the conduct of the accused, taken at its highest, could amount to an indecent assault. Given the importance of the matter, and the complexity involved I decided to reserve my decision. The accused lives in Melbourne, and Albury is closer than Melbourne. In those circumstances I deemed it appropriate to give my decision in Albury.

1. The accused was unrepresented at the hearing before me. Conformably with the legislation i.e. s. 294A Criminal Procedure Act 1986, the accused was not permitted to cross-examine the complainant. Ms. J. Mountford, a Registrar with the Court Registry at Wagga Wagga was appointed to assist the accused and cross-examine the complainant. Given the cross examination, it seems that the facts are in relatively short compass. As I understand from what was asked, and from what the accused said to me, he does not dispute the act as alleged…