District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Isaacs (a pseudonym) [2021] NSWDC 401 Hearing dates: 26 July 2021 to 30 July 2021 Date of orders: 13 August 2021 Decision date: 13 August 2021 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Priestley SC, DCJ Decision: VERDICTS
Count 1 Not GuiltyCount 2 Not Guilty
Count 3 Not Guilty
Catchwords: CRIME — Child sex offences — Sexual intercourse with child <10
CRIME — Child sex offences — Attempted Sexual intercourse with child <10
CRIME — Child Sex offences — Indecent assault child <10
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250
De Silva v The Queen [2019] HCA 48
R v Barker [2010] EWCA Crim 4
CMG v R [2011] VSCA 416
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Crown (Regina)
Isaacs (Accused)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Morters SC Crown Prosecutor NSW DPP
Cusack Counsel for the Accused
Magni Solicitor for NSW DPP
Vakauta & Affleck Solicitors for the Accused
File Number(s): 2019/00094395 Publication restriction: Unrestricted.
Judgment
Introduction
- This trial proceeded by way of a judge alone trial pursuant to section 132(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and commenced on 26 July 2021 and submissions concluded on 2 August 2021.
- The accused is charged with 3 offences. Each of them is alleged to have occurred in the period 1 November 2017 and 31 May 2018 at Ballina. The complainant in each of the charges is the daughter of the accused. The complainant was born on 10 October 2013, so that she was 4 years old at the time of the alleged offending. The three charges together with their particulars are:
2.1. That the accused had sexual intercourse with the complainant, a person then under 10, in contravention of section 66A(1) of the Crimes Act. The conduct alleged to make out this charge is the accused licking the complainant’s vagina.
2.2. That the accused did assault the complainant at a time she was under 16, and at the time of such assault committed an act of indecency upon her, in breach of section 61M(2) of the Crimes Act. The conduct alleged to make out this charge is the accused tickling the complainant in the genital region.
2.3. That the accused attempted to have sexual intercourse with the complainant, then under the age of 10. The conduct alleged to make out this charge is the accused attempting to place his penis in the mouth of the complainant.
General Directions
- In compliance with the decision of the High Court in Fleming-v-R (1998) 197 CLR 250 I remind myself of the following principles of law and set out the findings of fact on which I have relied.
- I direct myself that the onus of proof is “beyond reasonable doubt” and that the Crown bears the burden of proof.
- The Court has heard the submissions of both the Crown Prosecutor and of Counsel for the accused. The Court will…
Continue reading R v Isaacs (a pseudonym)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Isaacs (a pseudonym) [2021] NSWDC 401
- Case
- [2021] NSWDC 401
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had committed the alleged offences. The defence argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt, and that the complainant's credibility was questionable. The court was required to carefully examine the evidence presented and determine whether the prosecution had discharged its burden of proof.
In its deliberations, the court thoroughly evaluated the evidence and considered the credibility of the witnesses, particularly the complainant. The court noted inconsistencies in the complainant's statements and found that the evidence did not support a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court found the defendant not guilty on all three counts. The court's decision was based on the lack of reliable evidence to prove the defendant's guilt, and the reasonable doubt that remained regarding the complainant's credibility.
As a result of the court's findings, the defendant was acquitted on all charges. The court delivered its verdicts, finding the defendant not guilty on Count 1, Count 2, and Count 3. The case demonstrates the importance of the prosecution meeting its burden of proof in criminal cases, particularly when the accused's liberty is at stake.
Orders
Orders of the court
VERDICTS
Count 1 Not Guilty
Count 2 Not Guilty
Count 3 Not Guilty
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.