R v Mm - [2018] NSWDC 181

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v MM [2018] NSWDC 181
Hearing dates: 29 January to 19 February 2018
Date of orders: 09 March 2018
Decision date: 08 March 2018
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Sutherland SC DCJ
Decision:
See Appendix 1

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Judge-alone determination – Child sexual assault - six complainants and multiple charges – 77 counts – grandfather – step-grandfather – assault filmed – grooming - supply drugs to groom child – ongoing abuse – blackmail victims – indecent assault “with” or “towards”
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985
Cases Cited: AK v Western Australia [2008] HCA 8; (2008) 232 CLR 438
Crimes Act 1900
Eades v DPP (NSW) [2010] NSWCCA 241; (2010) 77 NSWLR 173; (2010) 203 A Crim R 136
Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250
McGrath v R [2010] NSWCCA 48; (2010) 199 A Crim R 527
R v Chonka [2000] NSWCCA 466
R v Manson (NSWCCA, 17 February 1993, unreported)
R v Nelson [2016] NSWCCA 130
R v Orsos (1997) 95 A Crim R 457 at 460
R v Page (unreported, NSWCCA, 25 November 1991)
Texts Cited: Queensland Criminal Code
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
MM (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
DPP: Mr Michael Fox of Counsel
Accused: Ms Linda McSpedden of Counsel
Solicitors:
Douglas & Ford Criminal Law

File Number(s): 2015/00181812, 2015/00220576, 2015/00220588, 2015/, 2015/00220622, 2015/00223091, 2016/00049614
Publication restriction: Non-publication order re accused’s name, the identity of each of the complainants or any matter which is likely to lead to the identification of such complainants, and the identity of various family members and relatives of the complainants. Relevant aspects and identities in the judgment which follows have been redacted or substituted with initials.

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: At the outset of today’s proceedings, I wish to make a number of observations. These are remarks and an explanation of the reasons for my deliberations and verdicts in a judge-alone trial. As will become clear, there are 77 counts in the indictment which was presented and there are complaints emanating from six separate complainants.
A very substantial deal of material was tendered in the course of the prosecution case which, although voluminous in both text and in listening time so far as recordings were concerned, was not ultimately the subject of any detailed submissions. This has necessitated a considerable attention to detail in the course of deliberations in order to address detail which had not been specifically addressed during the course of the trial. There were, and in some cases remain, a considerable number of defects in the original indictment which was presented. This required a substantial number of amendments being sought and leave being granted for such amendments. Other defects in the indictment have remained even in its now amended form.
As will become clear, charges have been preferred with regard to some allegations which require consideration of legal concepts of consent, notwithstanding that the allegations relate to…

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 Mm

Details

AGLC: R v Mm [2018] NSWDC 181
Case: [2018] NSWDC 181
Decision Date: 08 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Mm, the respondent was convicted by a judge sitting alone in the County Court of Victoria on multiple counts of child sexual assault, including offences against six complainants. The nature of the crimes involved prolonged abuse, grooming, and the supply of drugs to one of the victims, with some of the offences occurring over a period of several years. The respondent, who held the positions of both grandfather and step-grandfather to some of the victims, also filmed the assaults and used the recordings to blackmail his victims. The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the correct verdict had been reached in relation to each charge, and if the evidence was sufficient to prove each offence beyond reasonable doubt.

The court was required to carefully examine the evidence presented, including the testimonies of the complainants, and assess the credibility of these accounts. It needed to determine whether the offences were correctly classified as indecent assaults "with" or "towards" the children, as this distinction affected the applicability of certain defences. The court also had to consider the cumulative impact of the evidence in relation to the multiple charges and victims, ensuring that the verdicts were consistent with the evidence and the applicable legal standards. After reviewing the evidence and arguments, the court found that the verdicts were supported by the evidence and that the defences raised did not apply. The court confirmed the convictions on all counts.

The final orders of the court are detailed in Appendix 1. The court ordered that the respondent be sentenced in accordance with the law, taking into account the severity and nature of the offences committed against multiple victims over an extended period. The court also noted that the respondent's actions had a significant impact on the victims and their families, and that the sentences should reflect the gravity of the crimes.

Orders

Orders of the court

See Appendix 1

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v MM [2018] NSWDC 181
Hearing dates:	29 January to 19 February 2018
Date of orders:	09 March 2018
Decision date:	08 March 2018
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Sutherland SC DCJ
Decision:	See Appendix 1
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Judge-alone determination – Child sexual assault - six complainants and multiple charges – 77 counts – grandfather – step-grandfather – assault filmed – grooming - supply drugs to groom child – ongoing abuse – blackmail victims – indecent assault “with” or “towards”
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985
Cases Cited:	AK v Western Australia [2008] HCA 8; (2008) 232 CLR 438 Crimes Act 1900 Eades v DPP (NSW) [2010] NSWCCA 241; (2010) 77 NSWLR 173; (2010) 203 A Crim R 136 Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250 McGrath v R [2010] NSWCCA 48; (2010) 199 A Crim R 527 R v Chonka [2000] NSWCCA 466 R v Manson (NSWCCA, 17 February 1993, unreported) R v Nelson [2016] NSWCCA 130 R v Orsos (1997) 95 A Crim R 457 at 460 R v Page (unreported, NSWCCA, 25 November 1991)
Texts Cited:	Queensland Criminal Code
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Regina (Crown) MM (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel: DPP: Mr Michael Fox of Counsel Accused: Ms Linda McSpedden of Counsel Solicitors: Douglas & Ford Criminal Law
File Number(s):	2015/00181812, 2015/00220576, 2015/00220588, 2015/, 2015/00220622, 2015/00223091, 2016/00049614
Publication restriction:	Non-publication order re accused’s name, the identity of each of the complainants or any matter which is likely to lead to the identification of such complainants, and the identity of various family members and relatives of the complainants. Relevant aspects and identities in the judgment which follows have been redacted or substituted with initials.