R v BSJH

[2006] QDC 282

[2006] QDC 282

DISTRICT COURT
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

JUDGE ROBIN QC

Indictment No 3658 of 2005
THE QUEEN
v.

BSJH

BRISBANE

..DATE 31/07/2006

ORDER

CATCHWORDS: Evidence Act 1997 s 21AN - order for further pre- recording of child complainant's evidence regarding continuing post-complaint contacts with alleged offender both before and

since the pre-recording of her evidence - contacts may suggest inconsistency in the complainant's behaviour and expressed and actual attitude to the defendant.

HIS HONOUR: There is an application before the Court by the way he appreciated the significance of things. The complainant's section 93A statement was recorded on 13 December 2004 which was extremely close in time to the alleged offence which took place on 13 December 2004. The general policy of the legislation is clear: the s93A and pre-recording tapes should constitute the evidence of an affected child witness, and not be supplemented by further questioning of her.

accused under section 21AN of the Evidence Act 1997 seeking
further prerecording of evidence of a 13 year old complainant.
That prerecording took place on 16 March 2006 when Mr McInnes,
counsel for the defendant today, was also representing him.

The subject for further cross-examination is contacts that, on Mr McInnes's instructions, occurred between his client and the complainant in the period leading up to the pre-recording. It is contended today that there have been further such contacts

and perhaps more significant ones since the date of the pre-
recording. Those are said to include occasions when the
complainant was voluntarily alone with the defendant.

They may be inconsistent with or (more correctly) they may reveal inconsistency in the complainant's behaviour when tested against the sentiment in the statement,

"Pop's touched me. I don't want to see him anymore."

2   ORDER

31072006 D.1 T06/SLI9 M/T CMS85/2006 (Robin, DCJ)

which the complainant's mother attributed to her on 13	1
December 2004. Mr McInnes has a proper forensic concern not to be faced at trial with any assertion based on Browne v. Dunn (1893) 6R67 and his failure to canvass matters with the complainant.

10

At the pre-recording Mr McInnes was content to rely on the mother's statement of recent complaint. He asked the complainant no questions about what she had said, nor did the Prosecutor. The mother's statement is the only evidence of

20

what she said. It is unknown whether the complainant's
evidence would be the same or whether, assuming she did make
that statement, she harboured reservations of any kind about
it from the point of view of what her actual intentions might

have been.

30

Even if the mother's version of the statement is accurate and it accurately represented the complainant's then intentions, those intentions may well have changed for all manner of reasons. She may have revised her approach to the defendant,

40

even on the assumption that her complaint was true.

Section 21AN (2) authorises the application which is being made that the child give further evidence. Subsection (3) imposes restrictions in terms of the ability of the

50

complainant to be recalled and its being in the interest of
justice to make the order sought. Subsection (4) contains a
statutory preference for any further evidence of a child to be
31072006 D.1 T06/SLI9 M/T CMS85/2006 (Robin, DCJ) 3 ORDER 60

taken at a further preliminary hearing rather than at the	1
trial, presumably from a remote location.
The trial is set for tomorrow. As it happens it is convenient to have a further preliminary hearing for pre-recording of

10

further evidence. The mother will be a witness at the trial. for the purpose of giving her evidence accompanied by her children, including the complainant and a younger sister who has given a section 93A statement and pre-recorded evidence on

20

a basis of being a person present at the time of the alleged
offence. The Court is given the impression by counsel that
that younger child has not been able to contribute anything

useful.

30

In my opinion, the interests of justice here do point to the order's being made. There is obviously potential for situations like the present arising where the evidence of the crucial witness is taken in advance of the trial, particularly where there is a change in legal representation.

40

Different views might be taken about the significance of the topics to be pursued. There is also the circumstance here that on Mr McInnes's instructions, as related to the Court, there have been further contacts between the protagonists,

50

which he suggests are more significant, since the pre-
recording.
31072006 T07/CJK6 M/T CMS85/2006 (Robin DCJ) 4 ORDER 60

I think it is only necessary to state that situation to reach	1
a state of persuasion of what the interests of the justice require. It crossed my mind that it might be appropriate to require evidence from the defendant or someone else on a voir dire about these supposed contacts. The Prosecutor's outline

10

of argument complains that notwithstanding promises of
particulars of them none have been forthcoming. That

situation has been remedied today.

Mr McInnes's reply outline gives a certain amount of

20

particularity. There would remain a question of whether or not evidence should be required as opposed to assertions on instructions from the Bar table. It has not seemed necessary
given the degree of particularity to look into some possibly

difficult questions about forcing a defendant to give evidence

30

on a voir dire; there could be prejudicial consequences of
various kinds which were canvassed in the argument today.

Mr McInnes recalled an instance of a successful application by him similar to today's, he not having been counsel at the pre-

40

recording in the matter of Sean Patrick - is it McCaskie?

MR McINNES: McCasker, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: McCasker, on the 18th of October 2005. There his

50

Honour made an order under section 21AN on the basis that at the original pre-recording it had not been put to the complainant that the events described did not take place; that is a technical omission but potentially one of importance. Ms 31072006 T07/CJK6 M/T CMS85/2006 (Robin DCJ) 5 ORDER 60

Woolridge acknowledged that there were various occasions when	1
pre-recordings boded to be disrupted because of the late emergence of possibilities of new information emerging, for example, from searching Family Court files which might indicate appropriate subjects for cross-examination.

10

The high importance placed on not discomforting child witnesses by "pulling the plug" on pre-recordings at the last minute has led to a practice of concessions by the prosecution that if something does turn up there can be further pre-

20

recording. I had an instance of that situation occurring in statement by the complainant to police in an investigation involving another complainant and another suspect to the effect she had never been the victim of "bad touching".

30

As it turned out, special efforts were embarked upon which apprised counsel on both sides of the contents of the (till then) missing statement, so that the pre-recording could proceed in the ordinary way. The Court of Appeal has had

40

occasion to consider the refusal of a Judge in this Court to
make an order in HZ 2005 [QCA] 468 which seems to me a very
different situation from the present. The Court of Appeal
assessed the circumstances as ones in which the alleged error

of the primary Judge tended to favour the accused.

50

There has been a good deal of discussion about whether the complainant, assuming there is to be further questioning of her, should be asked for her version of the words she used to 31072006 T07/CJK6 M/T CMS85/2006 (Robin DCJ) 6 ORDER 60

her mother and perhaps other questions about her attitude. Mr	1
McInnes is not keen to do that and for obvious reasons the answers might not support the case of inconsistency in the complainant's conduct to the same extent as if the words which
will emerge in the mother's evidence represented exactly what

10

was said.

The other authority referred to today of MAP [2006] QCA 220, particular reference being made to paragraph [55], relates to this issue of exploring the statement that was made by way of

20

fresh complaint. I would be reluctant to direct defence
counsel to ask questions on particular issues as the price of
an order under section 21AN, the point of which would be to

explore rather different issues.

30

I think that, given that the basis of the further preliminary recording is to explore apparent inconsistency in the complainant's behaviour, the starting point really ought to be some kind of acknowledgment by her that her mother has got the statement right, or roughly right. I think the prosecution

40

ought to be allowed, and with a certain amount of leeway if ground as to how to proceed on the further preliminary hearing for pre-recording of evidence which will happen early tomorrow
necessary, to explore that question and, with that indication,

50

morning. I agree with Mr McInnes that, if the prosecution are
to canvas the issue, that should occur before he cross-
examines.
31072006 D.1 T-8/PAF23 M/T CMS85/2006 (Robin DCJ) 7 ORDER 60

It is the common view that it is preferable to proceed by way	1
of pre-recoding tomorrow rather than, as would also be a possibility under section 21AN, proceeding with the complainant giving further evidence live from a remote location. The pre-recording process offers safeguards against

10

something coming out before the jury which ought not to.

...

-----	20
30
40
50

8 ORDER 60