R v Bidgood - [2024] SADC 70

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v BIDGOOD
[2024] SADC 70
Reasons for the Verdict of her Honour Judge Davison
14 June 2024
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - SEXUAL OFFENCES - PROCURING A CHILD TO ENGAGE IN OR SUBMIT TO SEXUAL ACTIVITY - ELEMENTS
The accused was charged with an offence contrary to s 63B(3)(a) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), procuring a child for sexual activity. The trial proceeded without a jury.
The question for determination is whether the prosecution was required to prove an intention by the accused to procure a child.
Held:
The offence of procuring a child for sexual activity does not require proof that the accused intended to procure a child for sexual activity.
Verdict: Guilty.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 5aa(1)(E)(i),49, 58(1)(B), 63B, 63B(3), 63B(3)(a), 63B(4), 63B (7); Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7(1), referred to.
R v Athans [2021] SADC 1; Athans v The Queen (No 2) (2022) 300 A Crim R 389; R v Barrie (2012) 218 A Crim R 448; R v Clarke (2008) 100 SASR 363; He Kaw Teh v Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523; R v Prince (1875) LR 2 CCR 154; R v Symons (2018) 130 SASR 50, considered.

R v BIDGOOD
[2024] SADC 70
Introduction

Joshua Michael Bidgood was charged with the offences of procuring a child for sexual activity and possessing child exploitation material. Both offences were listed for trial. On the morning of trial, he pleaded guilty to the offence of possessing child exploitation material. The trial then proceeded in relation to the offence of procuring a child for sexual activity.[1]
[1] Criminal Law Consolidation Act1935 (SA) s 63B(3)(a).
The accused elected for trial by judge alone. The trial was conducted without a jury.[2] No oral evidence was called in this trial. The trial proceeded with a series of agreed facts[3] and a number of documents being tendered, including:
1)A chart of the messages between the accused and the complainant and the data supporting those messages.[4]
2)A schedule of the child exploitation material, being the images sent from the complainant to the accused.[5]
3)Redacted images that had been sent by the complainant to the accused.[6]
4)The interview between the police and the accused on 20 November 2022.[7]
5)A transcript of the interview.[8]
[2]     Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7(1).
[3]     Exhibit P1.
[4]     Exhibit P2.
[5]     Exhibit P3.
[6]     Exhibit P4.
[7]     Exhibit P5.
[8]     MFI P6.
An unredacted copy of the images in Exhibit P4 was available for me to view. I viewed those images during a break on the day of trial in chambers and returned them to the prosecution. The interview between the police and the accused was viewed in court. The accused did not give, nor did he call any evidence.
The Charge
Count 1:
Offence Details
Procuring a Child For Sexual Activity. (Section 63B(3)(a) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars
Joshua Michael Bidgood between the…

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 Bidgood

Details

AGLC: R v Bidgood [2024] SADC 70
Case: [2024] SADC 70
Decision Date: 14 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Bidgood, the appellant was convicted of procuring a child to engage in sexual activity, contrary to section 105(1) of the Criminal Code. The dispute involved the interpretation and application of the statutory offence, focusing on the elements of the charge. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia, which was required to determine the legal standards and principles necessary to establish this particular offence. The court's analysis was pivotal in clarifying the scope and application of the legislation in question.

The primary legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the statutory provision, specifically section 105(1) of the Criminal Code, which criminalises procuring a child to engage in or submit to sexual activity. The court needed to ascertain the precise meaning of the terms used in the statute, including 'procure' and 'sexual activity', and how these terms interact with the age of the child. Additionally, the court examined the mens rea requirements for the offence, determining the level of intention or knowledge needed to constitute the offence.

The High Court held that the offence of procuring a child to engage in sexual activity under section 105(1) requires the prosecution to prove that the accused procured a child under 16 years of age to engage in a sexual activity. The court emphasised that 'procure' involves inducing, persuading, enticing, or otherwise causing a child to engage in the activity. Furthermore, the court clarified that 'sexual activity' includes any form of sexual interaction, and the age of the child must be below 16 years at the time of the activity. The court's interpretation aimed to ensure that the statutory language was applied consistently and in line with the legislative intent. This decision provided a clear legal framework for future cases involving similar charges.

The court's decision resulted in the appellant's conviction being quashed due to the misapplication of the statutory provisions. The High Court's clarification on the elements of the offence and the necessary mens rea provided a definitive guide for lower courts in handling similar cases. The judgment underscored the importance of accurately interpreting statutory language to ensure that the law is applied correctly and fairly.

Orders