R v Eqh

Link copied
Case Copied 14 min read

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v EQH [2016] QDC 175

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

v

EQH

(defendant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CHAT1/2016 / DCR226/2015

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Charters Towers  

DELIVERED ON:

13 July 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Townsville

HEARING DATE:

02, 06, 10 and 24 June 2016

JUDGE:

Durward SC DCJ

ORDER:

1.   Application refused.

2.   No order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION:

CASES:

CRIMINAL LAW – TRIAL – ADJOURNMENTS – trial adjourned for pre-hearing application re: admissibility of scientific evidence of DNA produced late by prosecution – whether circumstances amount to trial being discontinued and new trial ordered in terms of and for an application for costs from the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973.

Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 s 22(1)(c); Criminal Code (Qld) 1899 ss 592, 593 and 597C.

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Clydesdale [2013] QCAT 191; Perry v R (1975) WAR 33; Pivovarova v Michelsen [2016] QCATA 45; Re: Powell (1894) 6 QLJ 36; R v His Honour Judge Kimmins; ex Parte Attorney-General [1980] Qd R 524; R v Khoury [2003] QDC 235; R v Lacey & Lacey [2009] QDC 303; R v WAH [2009] QCA 263; R v Watts [2011] QDC 194.

COUNSEL:

Mrs. C Grant for the applicant/defendant

Ms. S Jerome for the respondent/Crown

SOLICITORS:

Anderson Telford Lawyers for the applicant/defendant

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent/Crown

  1. The defendant has sought an indemnity certificate pursuant to s 22(1)(c) of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (“the Act”) arising from circumstances in which his trial in the District Court at Charters Towers, listed to commence before Judge and jury on 06 June 2016, was adjourned.

Charges

  1. The defendant is charged with four offences, namely:

(a)        Count 1 – indecent treatment of a child under 16;

(b)        Count 2 – rape;

(c)        Count 3 – sexual assault; and

(d)        Count 4 – unlawful entry of a vehicle in the night time with intent to commit an indictable offence.

  1. A number of preliminary hearings were conducted in the District Court at Townsville prior to the arraignment of the defendant in Charters Towers on 06 June 2016, when pleas of not guilty were entered. The trial had been variously estimated to take between two to three, or four, days depending on the extent of the prosecution evidence as was contemplated from time to time.

The adjournment of the trial

  1. The circumstances giving rise to the application were created by the late production of new scientific evidence by the prosecution. There is no fault on the part of the prosecution for this having occurred because it arises from further Police investigation and evidentiary findings which were disclosed as soon as the prosecution received notice of them. The new evidence was the results of DNA testing which it is alleged implicates the defendant in at least counts 1 to 3 of the indictment. It appears, although I am not certain of this, that the…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Eqh and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2016] QDC 175
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Eqh involved a criminal trial where the primary issue was the admissibility of DNA evidence presented late by the prosecution. The matter was before the court as a result of a pre-hearing application, which sought to determine whether the late production of the scientific evidence warranted the adjournment of the trial. The case was ultimately decided by the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with assessing whether the circumstances justified the trial being discontinued and a new trial ordered, in addition to considering the possibility of an application for costs from the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973.

The legal issues central to this case centred on the admissibility of late-produced evidence and its impact on the fairness and integrity of the trial process. The court had to evaluate whether the late disclosure of the DNA evidence constituted a significant procedural breach that warranted the adjournment or discontinuation of the trial. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the late production of the evidence was sufficiently egregious to warrant an application for costs from the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973, which is intended to compensate for costs incurred in unsuccessful appeals.

In delivering its decision, the court held that the circumstances did not amount to the trial being discontinued and a new trial ordered. The court found that while the late production of the evidence was a serious matter, it did not warrant such drastic measures. The court also determined that the application for costs from the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 was not justified, as the late disclosure did not rise to the level of procedural unfairness required for such a remedy. Consequently, the application was refused, and no order was made as to costs.

The final orders of the court were that the application was refused, and no order was made as to costs. The court's decision underscored the importance of timely disclosure of evidence in criminal trials but also emphasised that not every instance of late disclosure will result in the drastic measures sought by the defence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application refused.

2. No order as to costs.

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.