R v LP - [2020] QDC 218

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v LP [2020] QDC 218

PARTIES:

The Queen

v

LP

(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

733/18

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

9 September 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

HEARING DATE:

1, 2, 3 and 4 September 2020

JUDGES:

Smith DCJA

ORDER:

I find the defendant not guilty of indecent treatment of a child under 16 under 12 who is a lineal descendant.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty – whether crown has proved a circumstantial case against the defendant

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – PROOF – CIRCUMSTANTIAL CASE – whether crown has excluded reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) ss 216, 615B, 615C
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) s 39PB

Azzopardi v R [2001] HCA 25; (2001) 205 CLR 50, cited
Butera v DPP (1987) 164 CLR 180; [1987] HCA 58, cited
Chamberlain v R (No 2) [1983] HCA 7; (1983) 153 CLR 521, cited
Dookheea v R [2017] HCA 36; (2017) 262 CLR 402, cited
Fleming v R [1998] HCA 68; (1998) 197 CLR 250, applied
Nguyen v R [2012] ACTCA 24; (2012) 267 FLR 334, cited
R v Armstrong [2006] QCA 158, applied
R v Baden-Clay [2016] HCA 35; (2016) 258 CLR 308, cited
R v De Voss[1995] QCA 518, cited
R v E (1995) 89 A Crim R 325, applied
R v McBride[2008] QCA 412, cited
R v Michaux[1984] 2 Qd R 159, cited
R v Mulcahy [2010] ACTSC 98, cited
Shepherd v R [1990] HCA 56; (1990) 170 CLR 573, applied
Sochorova v Durairaj [2020] QCA 158, cited

COUNSEL:
Mr M Mitchell for the crown

Mr R Pearce for the defence

SOLICITORS:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the crown

Russell Baxter Solicitors for the defence

Introduction

This is a judge only trial.
The defendant is charged with one count of indecent treatment on his daughter, IP.
The defendant has pleaded not guilty to the charge and it is my role to determine on the evidence whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty.
The offence is set out in section 216 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) (“the Code”). The elements of the offence are:
(a)The defendant dealt with the complainant. “Dealing with” includes touching.
(b)The dealing was indecent. The word “indecent” bears its ordinary everyday 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.
(c)The dealing was unlawful i.e. not authorised justified or excused by law.
(d)The complainant was under 16.
(e)The complainant was under 12.
(f)The complainant was the defendant’s lineal descendant.
In this case, the only issue is whether the defendant unlawfully and indecently dealt with…

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 LP

Details

AGLC: R v LP [2020] QDC 218
Case: [2020] QDC 218
Decision Date: 9 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the defendant, LP, charged with indecent treatment of a child under 16, who is a lineal descendant, under section 12 of the relevant legislation. The defendant faced allegations of sexual offences against a child, and the court was tasked with determining whether the crown had sufficiently proven its case against LP.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the crown had established a circumstantial case against LP, thereby proving beyond reasonable doubt that LP was guilty of the offence. This required the court to assess whether the evidence presented excluded all reasonable hypotheses consistent with the defendant's innocence. The court needed to ensure that the evidence was strong enough to satisfy the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The court found that the evidence provided did not meet the required standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstantial evidence presented by the crown left room for reasonable hypotheses that were consistent with LP's innocence. As a result, the court was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that LP was guilty of the offence. Consequently, the court found LP not guilty of indecent treatment of a child under 16 under 12 who is a lineal descendant.

The court's final order was that LP was found not guilty of indecent treatment of a child under 16 under 12 who is a lineal descendant. This decision was based on the court's determination that the evidence did not exclude all reasonable hypotheses consistent with LP's innocence, and therefore, the crown had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Orders

Orders of the court

I find the defendant not guilty of indecent treatment of a child under 16 under 12 who is a lineal descendant.

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

I cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the crown has proved its case.Conclusion I find the defendant not guilty of indecent treatment of a child under 16 under 12 who is a lineal descendant.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v LP [2020] QDC 218
PARTIES:	The Queen v LP (Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	733/18
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:	9 September 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Southport
HEARING DATE:	1, 2, 3 and 4 September 2020
JUDGES:	Smith DCJA
ORDER:	I find the defendant not guilty of indecent treatment of a child under 16 under 12 who is a lineal descendant.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty – whether crown has proved a circumstantial case against the defendant CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – PROOF – CIRCUMSTANTIAL CASE – whether crown has excluded reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) ss 216, 615B, 615C Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) s 39PB Azzopardi v R [2001] HCA 25; (2001) 205 CLR 50, cited Butera v DPP (1987) 164 CLR 180; [1987] HCA 58, cited Chamberlain v R (No 2) [1983] HCA 7; (1983) 153 CLR 521, cited Dookheea v R [2017] HCA 36; (2017) 262 CLR 402, cited Fleming v R [1998] HCA 68; (1998) 197 CLR 250, applied Nguyen v R [2012] ACTCA 24; (2012) 267 FLR 334, cited R v Armstrong [2006] QCA 158, applied R v Baden-Clay [2016] HCA 35; (2016) 258 CLR 308, cited R v De Voss[1995] QCA 518, cited R v E (1995) 89 A Crim R 325, applied R v McBride[2008] QCA 412, cited R v Michaux[1984] 2 Qd R 159, cited R v Mulcahy [2010] ACTSC 98, cited Shepherd v R [1990] HCA 56; (1990) 170 CLR 573, applied Sochorova v Durairaj [2020] QCA 158, cited
COUNSEL:	Mr M Mitchell for the crown Mr R Pearce for the defence
SOLICITORS:	Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the crown Russell Baxter Solicitors for the defence