R v Brian Trevor Harris

[2020] QDC 28

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Brian Trevor Harris [2020] QDC 28

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

v

BRIAN TREVOR HARRIS

(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

23/19

DIVISION:

District Court of Queensland

PROCEEDING:

Judge only trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Dalby

DELIVERED ON:

9 March 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 February 2020 – 19 February 2020

JUDGE:

Loury QC DCJ

ORDER:

Guilty on counts 1 and 2 of the indictment.

CATCHWORDS:

JUDGE ALONE TRIAL – INDECENT DEALING OF A CHILD UNDER 16 – AGGRAVATED OFFENCE – EVIDENTIAL ISSUES – where the defendant is accused of two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12 – whether evidence of one complainant is admissible in the case against the other

Evidence Act 1977

COUNSEL:

C BIRKETT for the Prosecution

TA RYAN for the Defendant

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Prosecution

Fisher Dore Lawyers for the Defendant

Introduction

The defendant pleaded not guilty before me to two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12.  The complainant in each count was different.  His trial was conducted in accordance with a ruling made by Horneman-Wren DCJ that it be determined by a judge sitting alone without a jury. 

1. It falls to the Crown to prove the guilt of the defendant beyond reasonable doubt.  

1. My verdicts are based upon the evidence and only the evidence.  The evidence has consisted of testimony from the following witnesses:

1.          T.

2.          K.

3.          Mrs M, T’s mother.

4.          Mr L, T’s father.

5.          Mrs G, K’s mother.

6.          Detective Senior Constable Kristel Hawes.

7.          Officer P.

8.          Detective Sergeant Michael Forrest.

9.          The defendant.

10.       Margaret Koehler, the defendant’s sister.

The prosecution case

1. The two complainants were close friends when they lived together in a small country town. That town had a population of approximately 500 people according to the evidence of the defendant.  T moved from that country town to another in November 2012.   She remained friends with K and remained in contact with her principally through social media platforms.  Each of T and K allege that the defendant touched her on the vagina on a single occasion.  T was present when the incident involving K occurred.  K was not present when the incident involving T occurred.  Issues of contamination and collusion arise for my consideration.  The real issue in the trial is whether I am willing to accept the evidence of T or K in its essential parts beyond a reasonable doubt.  For the reasons which follow I do so find. 

T’s complaint and the witnesses relevant to her evidence

1. T was interviewed by Detective Senior Constable Hawes on 20 July 2017 when she was 15 years of age.[1]  She said that when she was aged 10, 11 or 12 she was in the car with her mother.  They were driving through town when they saw her father and the defendant walking to the bowls club.  Her mother offered them a lift.  Her father got…