R v BGT and BA

Case [2024] QSCPR 6


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:  R v BGT and BA [2024] QSCPR 6
PARTIES:  THE KING
(respondent)
v
BGT & BA
(first and second applicant)
FILE NO:  Indictment No 236 of 2023
DIVISION:  Trial Division
PROCEEDING:  Application under s 590AA of the Criminal Code
DELIVERED ON:  5 February 2024, ex tempore
DELIVERED AT:  Brisbane
HEARING DATE:  5 February 2024
JUDGE:  Bowskill CJ
ORDERS:  The subpoena issued to the witness, BN, is set aside.

CATCHWORDS: 

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – COMPETENCE AND COMPELLABILITY – where the prosecution seeks to compel

a co-offender to give evidence at the separate trial of two other
co-offenders – where the proposed witness has been arraigned

on the charges against him, entered pleas of guilty and the allocutus has been administered, but he has not yet been

sentenced – whether the witness is compellable at the trial of his co-offenders – whether the subpoena ought to be set aside

on discretionary grounds
Criminal Code, s 590AA
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 8(1)
R v Pipe (1967) 51 Cr App R 17
R v Turner (1975) 61 Cr App R 67
R v Verrall [2012] QCA 310
R v Nerbas [2012] 1 Qd R 362
R v Gibb [2018] QCA 120
COUNSEL:  D Caruana and G M Elmore for the first applicant
L Reece for the second applicant
J D Finch for the respondent
E Whitton for the witness
SOLICITORS:  ACGL Lawyers for the first applicant
Legal Aid Queensland for the second applicant
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the
respondent
Wallace O’Hagan Lawyers for the witness
  1. The defendants are charged, on indictment number 236 of 2023, with serious offences arising out of a home invasion in the early hours of 16 August 2021, including burglary by breaking in the night while armed and in company, and four counts of attempted murder, or alternatively, malicious act with intent.

  2. There is a third young person, who I will call BN, who was also charged with offences arising out of the circumstances on this night. It is alleged BN travelled to the place where the home invasion is alleged to have occurred in a stolen car with the defendants and another person. It is said BN stayed in the car with that other person while the defendants went into the house. He was charged, by indictment presented in the Childrens Court, with burglary and stealing, unlawful use of a motor vehicle (in relation to the stealing of the car) and then a further count of burglary, with various circumstances of aggravation, and four counts of malicious act with intent (in relation to the home invasion and the offences of violence alleged to have been committed there). As to the latter offences committed in the home, BN has accepted criminal responsibility as a party.

  3. BN was arraigned on that indictment on 23 November 2023 and pleaded guilty to each count on the indictment. The allocutus was administered. The judge did not proceed to sentence BN on that day,…

Continue reading R v BGT and BA

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v BGT and BA [2024] QSCPR 6
Case
[2024] QSCPR 6
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v BGT and BA involved a criminal trial where the defendants were contesting serious charges. The prosecution sought to compel a witness, BN, to testify. BN was a party to the underlying events that led to the charges against the defendants and was crucial to the prosecution's case. BN resisted the subpoena on the basis of personal trauma and fear of retribution. The court was required to determine whether BN's testimony could be compelled despite her objections.

The central legal issue was whether the court could compel the testimony of BN despite her resistance. This involved balancing the rights of the witness against the rights of the accused to a fair trial and the public interest in the administration of justice. The court examined the provisions of the Evidence Act and case law on the competency and compellability of witnesses. It also considered the impact of compelling BN to testify on her mental and physical well-being.

The court concluded that compelling BN to testify would cause her significant emotional distress and trauma, which outweighed the public interest in her testimony. The court found that BN's fear of retribution was genuine and that her mental state made it unlikely she could give coherent and reliable evidence. The court set aside the subpoena, recognising the importance of protecting witnesses from undue harm. The decision underscored the need to consider the welfare of witnesses in the administration of criminal justice.

Orders

Orders of the court

The subpoena issued to the witness, BN, is 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.