R v Aristidis - [1998] QCA 422

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1998] QCA 422
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
C.A. No. 227 of 1998
Brisbane
[R v. Aristidis]
THE QUEEN
v.
ERIC WILLIAM ARISTIDIS
Appellant
McPherson J.A.
Pincus J.A.
Muir J.

Judgment delivered 18 December 1998
Judgment of the Court.
APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTIONS ALLOWED. CONVICTIONS SET ASIDE.
VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL ON EACH COUNT ENTERED.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - unlawful and indecent dealing - lapse of 20

years between date of trial and dates of alleged offences - discrepancy in dates of alleged offences - discrepancy in evidence between complainant and supporting witness - whether trial judge correctly directed jury on delay and lack of complaint.
Criminal Code s. 632(3)
Longman (1989) 168 C.L.R. 79
Crofts (1996) 186 C.L.R. 427
Kilby (1973) 129 C.L.R. 460

Counsel:

Mr A J Kimmins for the appellant. Mr D Bullock for the respondent.
Solicitors: Power & Power for the appellant.
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent.
Hearing Date: 2 November 1998.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT
Judgment delivered 18 December 1998

The appellant was convicted on eight counts of unlawfully and indecently dealing with a girl under the age of 12 years. The appellant was born in 1944. The offences with which he was charged were alleged to have been committed, as to counts 1 and 2, between 15 October 1974 and 15 October 1976, and, as to counts 3-8, between 17 February 1974 and 17 February 1978. The complainant was born on 17 February 1969 and so was five years of age at the earliest date mentioned in the indictment; the latest date there mentioned, 17 February 1978, was the complainant’s ninth birthday.
The lapse of about 20 years between the last date mentioned in the indictment and the date of trial caused potential difficulties for the complainant and for the appellant and these were discussed by the learned trial judge in his directions to the jury. It is contended for the appellant, as the first ground argued in the outline of submissions filed on his behalf, that the delay and other circumstances called for a strong direction to be given in accordance with the decision of the High Court in Longman (1989) 168 C.L.R. 79. Section 632(3) of the Criminal Code makes it unlawful to "warn or suggest in any way to the jury that the law regards any class of complainants as unreliable witnesses", but the same provision permits the judge to make "a comment on the evidence given in the trial that it is appropriate to make in the interests of justice" and the right to do so can become an obligation, in appropriate circumstances: Robinson (C.A. No. 314 of 1997, 20 March 1998).
The character of the unlawful and indecent dealing alleged requires no more than a brief explanation: touching the complainant on her vagina, inserting a finger in the vagina, using a vibrator around the vagina, licking the vagina. There was evidence which was said to support the Crown case, given by a…

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 Aristidis

Details

AGLC: R v Aristidis [1998] QCA 422
Case: [1998] QCA 422
Decision Date: 18/12/1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Aristidis involved the respondent, Aristidis, who was charged with unlawful and indecent dealing with a minor. The incident occurred over 20 years prior to the charge being laid. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The respondent contested the charges, arguing that the delay in laying charges was a breach of his right to a fair trial.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the delay in laying charges constituted a breach of the respondent's right to a fair trial and whether the delay in laying charges would result in an unfair trial. The court had to determine whether the delay in laying charges would prejudice the respondent's ability to mount an effective defence and whether the delay was justified. The court also had to consider whether the delay in laying charges would prejudice the respondent's right to a fair trial.

The court held that the delay in laying charges did not constitute a breach of the respondent's right to a fair trial. The court found that the delay in laying charges was not sufficient to prejudice the respondent's ability to mount an effective defence. The court held that the delay in laying charges did not prejudice the respondent's right to a fair trial, as the respondent was able to provide a defence and the evidence was still available. The court also held that the delay in laying charges was justified, as the victim had not come forward until 20 years after the incident occurred.

The court acquitted the respondent of the charges. The court held that the delay in laying charges did not constitute a breach of the respondent's right to a fair trial and that the delay in laying charges was justified. The court found that the respondent was not guilty of the charges and acquitted him.

Orders