R v Kratzmann - [2020] QDC 103

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Kratzmann [2020] QDC 103

PARTIES:

R

v

JAMIE EDWARD KRATZMANN

(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

DIS-4265/19(0)

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Trial

DELIVERED ON:

3 June 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Warwick

HEARING DATE:

26, 27 May 2020

JUDGE:

Barlow QC DCJ

VERDICTS:

Count 1 – Guilty of indecent treatment of a child under 16

Count 2 – Not guilty

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – INDECENT ASSAULT AND RELATED OFFENCES – MENS REA, HONEST AND REASONABLE MISTAKE AND RECKLESSNESS – defendant charged with indecent treatment of a child under 16 years – complainant was 14 years old at the time of the alleged offences – whether defendant had a reasonable belief that the complainant was 16 years or older

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT – SEXUAL INTERCOURSE – defendant charged with rape – not in dispute that sexual intercourse occurred – circumstances of that sexual intercourse in dispute – whether sexual intercourse occurred when and where the complainant said it occurred

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT – defendant charged with indecent treatment of child under 16 – whether defendant had any belief as to complainant’s age – whether any belief as to complainant’s age reasonable

Criminal Code Act 1899 s 24, s 210, s 229, s 349, s 615B, s 615C

Azadzoi v County Court (2013) 40 VR 390, cited

R v Cotic [2003] QCA 435, applied

R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82, applied

R v Mrzljak [2005] 1 Qd R 308, applied

COUNSEL:

Z Kaplan for the Crown

J Goldie for the Defendant

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown

MacDonald Law for the Defendant

Contents
Introduction
Preliminary principles
Elements of the alleged offences
Count 1
Alternative count 1
Count 2
The complainant’s evidence
Preliminary matters
The police interview
Evidence in court
Other Crown evidence
Detective Sergeant Hauff
Mr F
Damien Wallace
Vanessa Guy
CF
The defendant’s evidence and other statements
Preliminary matters
Pretext call
Police interview
Evidence in court
Factors relevant to the complainant’s credit
Overall assessment of complainant’s credit
Cross-examination as to complainant’s motive to lie
Distressed condition
Preliminary complaint
The complainant’s behaviour after the incident
Defence – mistake of fact
Submissions
Crown
Defence
Findings as to credit
Findings of fact
Conclusions and verdicts

Introduction

The defendant is charged with the following offences:
Count 1: that on or about the seventeenth day of December, 2018 at Freestone in the State of Queensland, JAMIE EDWARD KRATZMANN unlawfully and indecently dealt with [the complainant], a child under 16 years.
Alternatively: that on or about the seventeenth day of December, 2018 at Freestone in the State of Queensland, JAMIE EDWARD KRATZMANN unlawfully and indecently assaulted [the complainant].
Count 2: that on or about the seventeenth day of December, 2018 at Freestone in…

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 Kratzmann

Details

AGLC: R v Kratzmann [2020] QDC 103
Case: [2020] QDC 103
Decision Date: 3 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant in R v Kratzmann was charged with multiple offences including indecent treatment of a child under 16 years and rape. The complainant was 14 years old at the time of the alleged offences. The court had to determine whether the defendant had a reasonable belief that the complainant was 16 years or older when the offences were committed. The defendant also faced charges of rape, where the occurrence of sexual intercourse was not in dispute, but the circumstances surrounding it were contested. Specifically, the court needed to ascertain whether the sexual intercourse occurred under the conditions described by the complainant.

The primary legal issues revolved around the mens rea for the offence of indecent treatment of a child under 16, specifically whether the defendant had an honest and reasonable belief that the complainant was 16 years or older. Additionally, for the charge of rape, the court had to determine the exact circumstances of the sexual intercourse, particularly the location and time. The court needed to assess the credibility of the evidence provided by both the prosecution and the defence to resolve these issues.

The court held that the defendant did not have a reasonable belief that the complainant was 16 years or older, thereby satisfying the mens rea for the indecent treatment charge. Regarding the rape charge, the court found that the sexual intercourse did not occur under the conditions alleged by the complainant, and therefore, the defendant was acquitted of this charge. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence presented, including witness testimonies and the defendant's account of events.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant was convicted of indecent treatment of a child under 16 years, and acquitted of the charge of rape. The court imposed a sentence appropriate to the conviction, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offence.

Orders