MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Police v Matthew Jones (a pseudonym) |
Citation: | [2025] ACTMC 10 |
Hearing Date: | 23 April 2025 |
Decision Date: | 8 May 2025 |
Before: | Chief Magistrate Walker |
Decision: | Subpoenas WIT25/382, WIT25/383, WIT25/384 and WIT25/386 are set aside. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – APPLICATION IN PROCEEDING – SUBPOENA TO CHILD WITNESSES – application to set aside subpoenas to give evidence – balance between prosecutorial discretion and Court’s implied power to control its own proceedings – likelihood of psychological harm to vulnerable children a basis to set aside a subpoena |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 26(2) Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT), r 6604 Children and Young People Act 2008 (ACT), ss 7, 349 Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), ss 11(2), 30 Legislation Act 2001 (ACT), s 139 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), ss 18, 19, 65, 66A, 126B, 131A(2)(a) Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 64 |
Cases Cited: | Castrucci v ACT Electricity Authority [1990] ACTR 1 Canham v ACT Magistrates Court and Jabs [2014] ACTSC 14 Crimmins v Pearson [2016] ACTSC 195 Williams v Spautz [1992] HCA 34 Levinge v Director of Custodial Services (1987) 9 NSWLR 546 R v Vilayur (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 2 CSR Ltd v Cigna Insurance Australia Ltd [1997] HCA 33 |
Parties: | Director-General of the Community Services Directorate (Applicant) Ross McLennan (Informant) Matthew Jones (a pseudonym) (Defendant) |
Representation: | Counsel Stafford Whitfield (Applicant) |
| Solicitors Indigo Collins (Applicant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Paul Edmonds (Defendant) | |
File Number: | CC 9344 of 2024 CC 9345 of 2024 CC 9346 of 2024 |
CHIEF MAGISTRATE WALKER:
Introduction
1․Subpoenas were issued at the request of the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) for four children (whose names have been anonymised to protect their identities), Charlotte aged 11, Cynthia aged 10, Marcus aged 9 and Aaron aged 4 (the children), which require them to attend to give evidence in a prosecution against their father, the Defendant. The Defendant is charged, pursuant to s 26(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), with three counts of common assault, aggravated by being in the family violence context, against his son Marcus.
2․The four children are currently subject to interim care and protection orders pursuant to which the Director-General of the Community Services Directorate (DG) has parental responsibility. There are two other members of this sibship who are not directly involved in these proceedings.
3․By Application in Proceeding filed on 14 April 2025, the DG applies to have the subpoenas set aside pursuant to rule 6604 of the Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT) (CPR), which provides, relevantly:
(1) On the application of a party or someone else having a sufficient interest, the Court may set aside a subpoena completely or partly,…
Continue reading Police v Matthew Jones (a pseudonym)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Police v Matthew Jones (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTMC 10
- Case
- [2025] ACTMC 10
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court carefully weighed the interests of the prosecution against the welfare of the child witnesses. It acknowledged the importance of children's evidence in serious criminal cases but emphasised that the court has a duty to protect children from unnecessary harm. The court found that the children in this case were particularly vulnerable due to their age and the nature of the offences. The potential for psychological harm from giving evidence was deemed to be substantial. The court considered that alternative measures, such as pre-recorded interviews or the use of support persons, could mitigate the harm while still allowing the children's evidence to be heard. However, these measures were not deemed sufficient in this instance. The court concluded that setting aside the subpoenas was the most appropriate course of action to protect the children from undue trauma.
In setting aside the subpoenas, the court provided detailed reasons for its decision. It noted the significant emotional and psychological impact that testifying in a criminal trial could have on young children. The court was particularly concerned about the potential for re-traumatisation given the nature of the offences. It found that the children's welfare was best served by not requiring them to attend court. The court also considered the impact on the administration of justice, but ultimately determined that the welfare of the children was paramount. The court's decision was grounded in the recognition that the protection of children from harm is a fundamental principle in the administration of justice. The orders set aside the subpoenas to the four child witnesses, ensuring that they would not be required to give evidence in person at the trial.
Orders
Orders of the court
Subpoenas WIT25/382, WIT25/383, WIT25/384 and WIT25/386 are set aside.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.