R v DF

The case of R v DF was heard by a judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The accused, DF, was found guilty of committing an act of indecency on a person over the age of 10 but under the age of 16, but was found not guilty of an act of indecency without consent due to reasonable doubt about the dates specified in the indictment. The legal issues before the court included whether the accused was guilty of the charges, the admissibility of evidence, and the effect of the Evidence Act on judge-alone trials in the ACT.

The court found that the evidence of the complainant, C, was convincing and that she was not motivated by anything other than a belief that the accused should be held accountable for his actions. The court also found that the evidence of the complainant’s friend, Ms Husking, was not as convincing, but that it was not unlikely that C would have confided in her about the incidents. The court held that the provisions of the Evidence Act, which were expressed to apply in jury trials, may not be applicable to judge-alone trials in the ACT. The court also found that the complainant’s evidence was not necessarily unreliable due to the encouragement of her cousin to make formal complaints, and that the implausibility of matters in evidence did not render the evidence unreliable.

The court found DF guilty of the first charge and not guilty of the second charge. The court held that the accused’s conviction on the first charge was not affected by the finding of not guilty on the second charge, as the finding on the second charge related to the reliability of evidence about dates, not the complainant’s veracity or honesty. The court also held that the evidence of the complainant was not unreliable due to the possible unreliability of other prosecution witnesses, and that the complainant’s inherently central role in the possible conviction of the accused did not render her evidence unreliable. The court further held that the complainant’s evidence was not unreliable due to the Longman warning, as the significance of the delay in making complaints was not significant in the absence of a sworn denial by the accused. Finally, the court held that the evidence taken by video link from Victoria on voir dire was excluded, as Victoria was not a participating State under the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT).