R v MMH

Case [2020] QDC 70


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v MMH [2020] QDC 70

PARTIES:

The Queen

v

MMH

FILE NO/S:

1795/2019

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

29 April 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 and 28 April 2020

JUDGE:

Smith DCJA

ORDER:

I find the defendant not guilty.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT – CONSENT –  GENERALLY – whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of rape – whether absence of consent proved beyond reasonable doubt

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) ss 1, 348, 349, 615B, 615C
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) ss 21AK, 21AW, 93A
Butera v DPP (1987) 164 CLR 180; [1987] HCA 58, applied
Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250; [1998] HCA 68, applied
Nguyen v R [2012] ACTCA 24; (2012) 267 FLR 334, cited
Robinson v R (1999) 197 CLR 162; [1999] HCA 42, applied
R v Armstrong [2006] QCA 158, applied
R v Coss [2016] QCA 44, applied
R v E (1995) 89 A Crim R 325, applied
R v LSS [2000] 1 Qd R 546; [1998] QCA 303, applied
R v Mulcahy [2010] ACTSC 98, cited
R v RH [2005] 1 Qd R 180; [2005] QCA, applied
R v Rutherford [2004] QCA 481, applied

COUNSEL:

Ms C Ahern for the crown

Mr M Bonasia for the defence

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the crown

McMillan Criminal Lawyers for the defence

Introduction

  1. This is a judge only trial.

  1. The defendant is charged with the following count:

“That on or about 16th day of December 2018, at Kuraby in the state of Queensland, the defendant raped SJ.”

  1. 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.

  1. The offence of rape is set out in section 349 of the Criminal Code. The elements of the offence are carnal knowledge[1] without consent.

    [1]Defined in section 1 of the Criminal Code.

  1. Consent is defined in section 348 of the Criminal Code as: 

“ 348     Meaning of consent

(1)         In this chapter, consent means consent freely and voluntarily given by a person with the cognitive capacity to give the consent.

(2)         Without limiting subsection (1), a person’s consent to an act is not freely and voluntarily given if it is obtained—

(a)       by force; or

(b)       by threat or intimidation; or

(c)       by fear of bodily harm; or

(d)      by exercise of authority; or

(e)       by false and fraudulent representations about the nature or purpose of the act; or

(f)       by a mistaken belief induced by the accused person that the accused person was the person’s sexual partner.”

  1. The only issue in dispute in the trial is whether the complainant consented to sexual intercourse.

Principles to be applied

  1. In a judge only trial, the judge must apply,…

Continue reading R v MMH

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v MMH [2020] QDC 70
Case
[2020] QDC 70
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, MMH, was charged with raping the complainant, ABC. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. MMH pleaded not guilty to the charge. The complainant alleged that MMH engaged in sexual intercourse with her without her consent. MMH argued that the sexual intercourse was consensual.

The court had to determine whether the absence of consent was proved beyond reasonable doubt. This involved assessing the evidence presented by both parties, including the complainant's testimony and the circumstances surrounding the incident. The court considered the credibility of the witnesses and the reliability of the evidence provided. The court also examined the legal principles and definitions related to consent in sexual offences.

The court found that the prosecution had not proven beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent to the sexual intercourse. The court noted inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and found that the defendant's version of events was more credible. The court concluded that the complainant had not demonstrated that she had communicated her lack of consent to MMH. As a result, the court found the defendant not guilty of the charge of rape. The court also considered the lesser charge of sexual assault but determined that this charge was not proven beyond reasonable doubt either.

Orders

Orders of the court

I find the defendant not guilty.

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.