R v Est - [2020] QDC 341

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v EST [2020] QDC 341

PARTIES:

R

v

EST

(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

9 of 2020

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Hervey Bay

DELIVERED ON:

3 December 2020 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1-2 December 2020

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

Defendant found guilty of each of counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SEXUAL OFFENCES – INDECENT TREATMENT OF A CHILD – JUDGE ALONE TRIAL – whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12, under care – whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of rape – whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of attempted indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12, under care – whether the offences charged are proved beyond reasonable doubt

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) ss 21AK, 93A
Criminal Code (Qld) s 4, 349(3), 644

R v MMH [2020] QDC 70
R v Allen (a pseudonym) [2020] QCA 233

COUNSEL:

MA Gawrych for the Crown

PA Hardcastle for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown

Milburns Law for the defendant

Introduction

The defendant, EST, is charged on indictment 9/20 with the following counts:

(1) Counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 – indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12, under care.

(2) Counts 4 and 6 – rape.

(3) Attempted indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12, under care.

The counts were indicted as follows:

Count 1 – that on a date unknown between the 20th day of December 2013 and the 31st day of December 2013 at Kingaroy in the State of Queensland, EST unlawfully and indecently dealt with [the complainant], a child under 16 years, and [the complainant] was under 12 years, and EST had [the complainant] under his care for the time being.
Count 2 – that on a date unknown between the 31st day of December 2013 and the 28th day of February 2014 at Kingaroy in the State of Queensland, EST unlawfully and indecently dealt with [the complainant], a child under 16 years, and [the complainant] was under 12 years, and EST had [the complainant] under his care for the time being.
Count 3 – that on a date unknown between the 31st day of December 2013 and the 28th day of February 2014 at Kingaroy in the State of Queensland, EST unlawfully and indecently dealt with [the complainant], a child under 16 years, and [the complainant] was under 12 years, and EST had [the complainant] under his care for the time being.
Count 4 – that on a date unknown between the 31st day of December 2013 and the 28th day of February 2014 at Kingaroy in the State of Queensland, EST raped [the complainant].
Count 5 – that on a date unknown between the 31st day of December 2013 and the 28th day of February…

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 Est

Details

AGLC: R v Est [2020] QDC 341
Case: [2020] QDC 341
Decision Date: 3 December 2020 (ex tempore)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was charged with various sexual offences against a child under 16, including indecent treatment, rape, and attempted indecent treatment, while the child was under his care. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The appellant contested the charges and the matter was determined by a judge sitting alone.

The court was required to determine the guilt of the appellant on each of the nine counts. The legal issues involved the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions, the standard of proof required, and the applicability of the evidence presented. The court considered whether the prosecution had proved each element of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.

The court found that the prosecution had successfully discharged the burden of proving each element of the offences beyond reasonable doubt. The court accepted the evidence of the complainant and found the appellant's evidence to be not credible. The court found the appellant guilty of all nine counts.

The court made orders convicting the appellant on each of counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. The court adjourned sentencing to a later date to allow for the preparation of a presentence report.

Orders

Orders of the court

Defendant found guilty of each of counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.

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.

CITATION:	R v EST [2020] QDC 341
PARTIES:	R v EST (Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	9 of 2020
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Hervey Bay
DELIVERED ON:	3 December 2020 (ex tempore)
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1-2 December 2020
JUDGE:	Dearden DCJ
ORDER:	Defendant found guilty of each of counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – SEXUAL OFFENCES – INDECENT TREATMENT OF A CHILD – JUDGE ALONE TRIAL – whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12, under care – whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of rape – whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of attempted indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12, under care – whether the offences charged are proved beyond reasonable doubt
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) ss 21AK, 93A Criminal Code (Qld) s 4, 349(3), 644
R v MMH [2020] QDC 70 R v Allen (a pseudonym) [2020] QCA 233
COUNSEL:	MA Gawrych for the Crown PA Hardcastle for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown Milburns Law for the defendant