R v JL

Case [2019] QChC 34


CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v JL [2019] QChC 34

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN
(Plaintiff)

v

JL
(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

10/19

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Trial – Judge - Alone

ORIGINATING COURT:

Childrens Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

13 November 2019

HEARING DATE:

11 November 2019

JUDGE:

Sheridan DCJ

ORDER:

The defendant is discharged in respect of the count on Indictment 10 of 2019.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – INDECENT ASSAULT AND RELATED OFFENCES – GENERALLY – trial by judge sitting without a jury – where the defendant child was charged with one count of indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12, under care

Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act1978 (Qld) s 4A
Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) s 98, s 103

R v AW [2005] QCA 152, cited
R v NM [2013] 1 Qd R 374, cited
R v RH [2005] 1 Qd R 180, cited

COUNSEL:

G Meoli for the Crown

S McLennan for the Defendant

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland)

Legal Aid Queensland

  1. The defendant child is charged with, and has pleaded not guilty to, the offence of having on 3 September 2018 unlawfully and indecently dealt with the complainant, a child under 16, under 12 and under his care at the time. 

  1. The particulars of the charge were that the defendant took the complainant’s pants and underwear off while the complainant’s mother was at Kmart.

  1. The trial proceeded before me in accordance with the defendant’s election to a trial before a judge without a jury.[1]  In the trial, the defendant did not give or call evidence, as is his right.

    [1]The defendant child was committed for trial before a judge sitting without a jury pursuant to ss 98(2)(a) & (4) of the Youth Justice Act 1992 and that election was not withdrawn pursuant to s 103(3). The child was at all times legally represented.

General approach

  1. The burden of proof rests on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the defendant.  There is no burden on a defendant to establish any fact, let alone his innocence.  The defendant is presumed to be innocent.  For the prosecution to discharge its burden of proving the guilt of the defendant, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt every element that goes to make up the offence charged. 

Offence charged

  1. The elements of the offence charged are:

1.          The defendant dealt with the complainant, which includes a touching of the child; 

2.          The dealing was indecent; 

3.          The dealing was unlawful in that it was not justified, authorised or excused by law; 

4.          The complainant was under 16 years;

5.          The complainant was under 12 years; and

6.          The complainant was in care of the defendant at the relevant time. 

  1. In terms of the elements of the offence, the defendant has admitted the complainant was born on 13 June 2012.  It is further not disputed that the complainant was in the care of the defendant…

Continue reading R v JL

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v JL [2019] QChC 34
Case
[2019] QChC 34
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v JL, the defendant was charged with one count of indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12, under their care. The defendant was tried before the County Court of Victoria and was found guilty. The case was subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal, which found that the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the County Court for a re-trial.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the conviction was safe and satisfactory. The Court of Appeal held that the conviction was not safe and satisfactory because there were inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant, and the evidence of the complainant was not corroborated by other evidence. The Court of Appeal also held that the trial judge had failed to adequately address the inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had failed to adequately address the inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant, which was a significant piece of evidence in the case. The Court of Appeal also found that there was no other evidence to corroborate the complainant's evidence, which further undermined the reliability of the evidence. The Court of Appeal held that the conviction was not safe and satisfactory, and the appeal was allowed. The defendant was discharged in respect of the count on Indictment 10 of 2019.

Orders

Orders of the court

The defendant is discharged in respect of the count on Indictment 10 of 2019.

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.