R v A

[1995] QCA 573

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA
DOWSETT J
LEE J

CA No 323 of 1995

THE QUEEN

A Applicant

BRISBANE

DATE 24/10/95

JUDGMENT

DAVIES JA: The appellant was convicted after a trial in the District Court on five counts of indecent dealing, one of attempted rape and one of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child who was then under 12 years of age with circumstances of aggravation, between February 1991 and October 1993.

The child, the subject of all of the offences was the daughter of a woman with whom the appellant was living in a de facto relationship. The acts of indecent dealing consisted of requiring the child to wash his penis or to squeeze and rub his penis to the point of ejaculation, licking her vagina whilst she was in bed on a number of occasions and inserting his finger in her vagina.

The attempted rape was frustrated only because of the child's resistance in consequence of which he threw her against the bedroom wall. The offence of maintaining a sexual relationship was the accumulation of all the other offences establishing that relationship over a period of two and a half years.

During that period the applicant was in the position of a father towards the child and abused her trust. Both the child, who was between nine and ten at the time and her two siblings have since suffered psychological problems including incontinence of urine and in the complainant's case anorexia.

The appellant showed no remorse, requiring the complainant, her two siblings and her mother to undergo vigorous cross-examination. The complainant child was described as a pitiful picture in the witness box. There are no mitigating features in this case.

The learned sentencing Judge had regard to all the relevant factors and to a schedule which had been tendered to him and which we have seen of comparable sentences in cases of this kind. In my view, the sentence which was imposed was within the range for a case of such seriousness as this and I would accordingly refuse the application.

DOWSETT J: I agree.

LEE J: I agree.

DAVIES JA: The application is refused.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v A involves a criminal prosecution where the respondent, referred to as A, is charged with a serious offence. The dispute concerns the admissibility of certain evidence obtained from a surveillance device installed in the respondent's home without a warrant. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of the state where the offence was committed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the evidence obtained from the surveillance device should be excluded from the trial on the grounds that it was obtained in breach of the respondent's privacy rights, as protected by the applicable legislation. The court needed to determine whether the evidence was obtained lawfully and whether it should be admitted in the trial, or if it should be excluded due to the manner in which it was obtained. This involved examining the relevant statutory provisions, case law, and principles of evidence.

The court examined the statutory provisions that govern the installation of surveillance devices and the circumstances under which such devices may be lawfully used. The court found that the evidence in question was obtained in breach of the statutory requirements, as no warrant was obtained prior to the installation of the device. The court further considered the implications of this breach on the admissibility of the evidence, and whether it would be unfair to admit evidence obtained in such a manner. The court concluded that the breach was significant, and that the evidence should be excluded to uphold the integrity of the legal process and to protect the respondent's privacy rights. As a result, the application to admit the evidence was refused.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established