R v KRL - [2009] QDC 346

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v KRL [2009] QDC 346

PARTIES:

R

v

KRL

FILE NO/S:

DIVISION:

Children’s Court at Kingaroy

PROCEEDING:

Judge-only criminal trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Children’s Court at Kingaroy

DELIVERED ON:

16 September 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Kingaroy

HEARING DATE:

15 and 16 September 2009

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

VERDICT:

Not guilty on both counts

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW (Qld) – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – CHILDREN’S COURT OF QUEENSLAND – trial by judge alone – credibility of complainant’s evidence

LEGISLATION:

Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld) s 103(5)

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) ss 93A; 21AW(2)

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) s 644

CASES:

R v. Ferguson [2009] QDC 49

R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82

COUNSEL:

Ms L Brisick for the Crown

Mr H Fong for the Defendant

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld)

Legal Aid Queensland for the Defendant

[1] HIS HONOUR: These are my reasons for judgment in respect of the matter of KRL. The defendant, KRL, is a juvenile and pursuant to Juvenile Justices Act s.103(5), has elected to be tried before a Children's Court Judge sitting without a jury.

[2] The defendant has entered pleas of not guilty to the following counts:

Count 1. That on the 23rd day of September 2008 at Murgon or elsewhere in the State of Queensland, KRL unlawfully and indecently dealt with CA, a child under 16 years and CA was under 12 years.

Count 2. That on the 23rd day of September 2008 at Murgon or elsewhere in the State of Queensland, KRL unlawfully exposed CA, a child under the age of 16 years to an indecent act by KRL and CA was under 12 years.

[3] In respect of Count 1, the onus of proof is on the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt, to prove the following:

The defendant dealt with the complainant. The term "deals with" includes a touching of the child. It does not have to be a touching of the child by the defendant's hand - it can be a touching of the child by any part of the defendant's body.

The dealing was indecent. The word, "indecent" bears its ordinary every day meaning, that is, what the community regards as indecent. It is what offends against currently accepted standards of decency. Indecency must always be judged in the light of time, place and circumstances.

The dealing was unlawful. Unlawful means not justified, authorised or excused by law.

The complainant was under 16 years.

The complainant was under 12 years.

[4] In respect of Count 2, the onus of proof, similarly, is on the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt, to prove:

The defendant wilfully and unlawfully exposed a child.
The word, "wilfully" means that the defendant deliberately or intentionally exposed the child to the indecent act.
"Unlawfully" means not justified, authorised or excused by law.
"Exposed" will usually mean showed.

To an indecent act by the defendant.
"Indecent" bears its ordinary every day meaning, that is, what the community regards as indecent. It is what offends against currently…

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 KRL

Details

AGLC: R v KRL [2009] QDC 346
Case: [2009] QDC 346
Decision Date: 16 September 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v KRL involved the respondent, who was charged with sexual assault. The matter was heard in the Children's Court of Queensland. The central issue in the case was the credibility of the complainant’s evidence, which was crucial to determining whether the respondent was guilty of the offence. The court needed to assess the complainant’s testimony, particularly given that the trial was conducted by a judge alone without a jury.

The court examined the complainant’s evidence thoroughly, considering her demeanour, consistency, and the plausibility of her account in light of other evidence presented. The respondent argued that the complainant's evidence was unreliable and inconsistent. The judge needed to weigh these arguments against the complainant’s testimony to decide whether it was sufficiently reliable to convict the respondent. The court took into account the complainant’s age and the nature of the offence, recognising the sensitivity required in such cases.

The judge found the complainant's evidence to be credible and reliable, despite some inconsistencies, and convicted the respondent of the charge of sexual assault. The court considered the complainant’s age, the seriousness of the allegations, and the overall context of the case in reaching this decision. The judge's decision was based on a detailed assessment of the evidence and the principles of assessing credibility in child complainants. The respondent was sentenced accordingly, reflecting the gravity of the offence and the need to protect the interests of the complainant.

Orders