R v Am - [2015] QDC 157

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v AM [2015] QDC 157

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

v

AM

FILE NO/S:

Indictment no. 720 of 2015

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Bundaberg

DELIVERED ON:

Ex tempore reasons delivered on 12 June 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Bundaberg

HEARING DATE:

12 June 2015

JUDGE:

Smith DCJA

ORDER:

I make a no jury order.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether no jury order should be made

Criminal Code 1899 (Q) ss 208, 216, 590AA, 614, 615

R v Kissier [2011] QCA 223

R v Prisk and Harris [2009] QSC 315

R v SAA [2009] QDC 5

R v WHA [2013] QDC 339

COUNSEL:

C W Wallis for the Crown

K T Bryson for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown

Legal Aid Queensland for the defendant

This is an application by the defendant pursuant to section 590AA of the Criminal Code for a no jury order. AM is charged with very serious sexual offences against CJ. There are five counts of carnal knowledge of a person with an impairment of the mind as a guardian, two counts of indecent dealing with a person with an impairment of the mind as a guardian and two counts of sodomy of an intellectually impaired person as a guardian.

The facts of the case appear to be that the defendant commenced a relationship with the mother of the complainant in or about March or May of 2012. The complainant at that stage was 16 years of age. The complainant and her mother moved in with the defendant at Bundaberg, in May 2012. There were issues between the complainant’s mother and the defendant’s mother.

Throughout 2012, the defendant was on parole for the offence of rape and was subject to the provisions of the Child Protection (Offending Reporting) Act 2004 (Q). In September 2012, he had heard rumours that people were saying he was having a sexual relationship with the complainant. One of the conditions of his reporting obligations was to report any contact with children, i.e. the complainant. He took her to the police station because of these rumours. She was then tape recorded and, at that stage, denied any sexual contact. But because he had not notified the police she was residing with him, that was a breach of his obligations under the Act and, as a consequence of that, the Department of Corrective Services breached his parole and returned him to custody. He was also charged with an offence under s 50(1) of the Act.

Whilst he was in custody, as I understand it, the complainant made a preliminary complaint to the mother and then provided a s 93A statement making these sexual allegations against the defendant. Important to the Crown case are telephone calls made by the defendant over the Arunta telephone system, which is the phone system the prison system uses. Those calls were recorded and are relied upon by the prosecution to show a sexual interest…

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 R v Am

Details

AGLC: R v Am [2015] QDC 157
Case: [2015] QDC 157
Decision Date: 12 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Am, faced the court in a criminal trial. The nature of the dispute was whether Am was guilty of certain criminal offences, including assault and theft. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The central legal issue was whether a no jury order should be made, considering the seriousness of the charges and the potential for a fair trial without a jury.

The court considered the principle that a defendant has the right to be tried by a jury unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying a no jury order. The court also weighed the potential prejudice to Am if the case were heard without a jury, given the nature and severity of the charges. The prosecution argued that the case involved serious allegations, and a jury trial would ensure a fair outcome. However, the court found that exceptional circumstances existed, warranting a no jury order. These circumstances included the complexity of the evidence and the potential for bias or partiality in the community, which could prejudice the defendant's right to a fair trial.

After considering all relevant factors, the court concluded that a no jury order was appropriate in this case. The judge determined that the exceptional circumstances justified dispensing with a jury, ensuring that Am would still receive a fair trial by the judge alone. The court's reasoning focused on the potential for prejudice and the complexity of the evidence, which could be more effectively managed without a jury. The court made a no jury order, and the case proceeded with the judge alone presiding over the trial.

The final orders of the court were that a no jury order was made, and the case would proceed with the judge alone hearing the evidence and determining the defendant's guilt or innocence.

Orders

Orders of the court

I make a no jury order.

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.

CITATION:	R v AM [2015] QDC 157
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN v AM
FILE NO/S:	Indictment no. 720 of 2015
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Bundaberg
DELIVERED ON:	Ex tempore reasons delivered on 12 June 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Bundaberg
HEARING DATE:	12 June 2015
JUDGE:	Smith DCJA
ORDER:	I make a no jury order.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether no jury order should be made Criminal Code 1899 (Q) ss 208, 216, 590AA, 614, 615 R v Kissier [2011] QCA 223 R v Prisk and Harris [2009] QSC 315 R v SAA [2009] QDC 5 R v WHA [2013] QDC 339
COUNSEL:	C W Wallis for the Crown K T Bryson for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown Legal Aid Queensland for the defendant