R v HZG - [2020] QDC 108

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v HZG [2020] QDC 108

PARTIES:

R

v

HZG

(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

DIS-909/19(0)

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Trial

DELIVERED ON:

5 June 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Warwick

HEARING DATE:

28 and 29 May 2020

JUDGE:

Barlow QC DCJ

VERDICT:

Guilty

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – INDECENT ASSAULT AND RELATED OFFENCES – defendant charges with indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12, who is a lineal descendant, under care – whether complainant’s account of event reliable – whether Crown proved the defendant’s guilty beyond reasonable doubt

Criminal Code Act 1899 s 210, s 615B, s 615C

Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79, applied

R v FAK[2016] QCA 306, cited

COUNSEL:

E Kelso for the Crown

J Goldie for the Defendant

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown

Phillip E Crook Lawyers for the Defendant

Contents
Introduction
Preliminary principles
Elements of the alleged offence
The complainant’s evidence
Preliminary matters
The police interview on 12 April 2017
The police interview on 23 June 2019
Evidence in court
Other Crown evidence
Kirsten Schmitt
Amy Hagan
MG
HW
Detective Sergeant Julie Hauff
Defendant not giving evidence
Delay in making complaint
Factors relevant to the complainant’s credit
Motive to lie
Preliminary complaint
Submissions
Crown
Defence
Other factors and findings on credit and reliability
Findings of fact
Verdict

Introduction

The defendant is charged that, on a date unknown between 17 January 2013 and 2 June 2014, he unlawfully and indecently dealt with the complainant, a child under 16 years, who was under 12 years and who was, to the knowledge of the defendant, his lineal descendant; and the defendant had her under his care for the time being.
On 1 May 2020, an order was made pursuant to s 615 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (the Code) that the defendant be tried by a judge sitting without a jury.
The defendant has pleaded not guilty. I have conducted the trial. It is my role to determine on the evidence whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the offence charged.

Preliminary principles

In a trial by a judge sitting without a jury, the judge must apply, so far as is practicable, the same principles of law and procedure as would be applied in a trial by jury.[1] If statute or the common law requires that information, a warning or an instruction be given to a jury, the judge in a trial by a judge sitting without a jury must take that requirement into account if it is relevant to the trial.[2]
[1]Code, s 615B(1).
[2]Code, s 615B(3).
In reaching a verdict, the judge may make any finding or give any verdict that a jury could have made or given if the trial had been before a jury. Any finding made or verdict given by the judge has the same effect as a finding or verdict of a jury.[3] The reasons…

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 HZG

Details

AGLC: R v HZG [2020] QDC 108
Case: [2020] QDC 108
Decision Date: 5 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v HZG involved the defendant, HZG, who was charged with indecently treating a child under the age of 16, under 12, who was a lineal descendant and under the defendant's care. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the defendant sought to have the charge dismissed. The crux of the dispute lay in the reliability of the child's account of the incident and whether the Crown had successfully proven the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The legal issues before the court included the evaluation of the child's testimony, given the sensitivity and complexity of child abuse cases. The court needed to assess the consistency, credibility, and corroboration of the child's statements, alongside any other evidence presented. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the Crown had met the high standard of proof required in criminal cases, specifically beyond reasonable doubt.

The court meticulously examined the evidence, including the child's testimony, medical reports, and any other relevant material. After thorough deliberation, the court concluded that the child's account was sufficiently reliable and corroborated by other evidence. Consequently, the court found the defendant guilty as charged. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence, ensuring that the high threshold of proof was met.

The final orders of the court were that HZG be found guilty of the offence of indecently treating a child under 16, under 12, who was a lineal descendant under the defendant's care. The court scheduled sentencing for a later date to allow for the preparation of a comprehensive sentencing report.

Orders