R v NF

Case [2020] QDC 206

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v NF [2020] QDC 206

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

v

NF

(Defendant)

FILE NO:

Townsville Indictment No 594 of 2019

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

30 July 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 June 2020 – 18 June 2020, 24 June 2020

JUDGES:

O’Brien CJDC

ORDER:

Count 1: Guilty

Count 2: Guilty

Count 3: Guilty

Count 4: Guilty

Count 5: Guilty

Count 6: Guilty

Count 7: Guilty

Count 8: Guilty

Count 9: Guilty

Count 10: Guilty

Count 11: Not guilty

Count 12: Not guilty

Count 13: Not guilty

Count 14: Guilty

Count 15: Guilty

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – TRIAL HAD BEFORE JUDGE WITHOUT JURY – where the defendant is charged with one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child under the age of 16 years – where the defendant is charged with one count of indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12 – where the defendant is charged with eight counts of rape – where the defendant is charged with one count of indecent treatment of a child under 16, under care – where the defendant is charged with three charges of common assault – where the defendant is charged with one count of assault occasioning bodily harm – whether the Crown has proved each element of each charge beyond reasonable doubt
COUNSEL:

Ms M A Sheppard, Crown Prosecutor for the Crown

Mr F D Richards for the defendant
SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown

Legal Aid Queensland for the defendant

Introduction

  1. The accused is charged on the indictment with 15 offences, each said to have been committed against the same complainant.  The first charge alleges that between 15 May 1995 and 2 November 1999 at Townsville and elsewhere, he maintained an unlawful sexual relationship with a child under the age of 16 years.  It is alleged, as a circumstance of aggravation, that during the course of that relationship he committed rape upon the complainant.  Counts 2 and 4 allege offences of indecent treatment of a child, each with a circumstance of aggravation.  Counts 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 allege offences of rape and Count 10, an offence of assault occasioning bodily harm. The remaining counts, Counts 5, 14 and 15 each allege an offence of common assault. Particulars of those several charges are set out in Exhibit 1.

  2. On 6 December 2019, the accused entered pleas of not guilty to all charges and on that same date an order was made pursuant to s 21A(2)(e) of the Evidence Act 1977 that the evidence of the complainant as a special witness should be pre-recorded and heard in the proceeding instead of her direct testimony.  That pre-recording took place over two days before His Honour Judge Lynham on 27 March and 3 April 2020.  Those recordings have become Exhibit 2 in these proceedings.

  3. On 11 May 2020, an order was made pursuant to s 615(1) of the Criminal…

Continue reading R v NF

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v NF [2020] QDC 206
Case
[2020] QDC 206
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v NF involved the defendant facing multiple charges, including maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child under 16, indecent treatment of a child under 16, rape, assault occasioning bodily harm, and common assault. The case was heard by a judge sitting alone in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue in the case was whether the Crown had proved each element of each charge beyond reasonable doubt. This involved an assessment of the complainant's evidence, as well as the defendant's account, and whether the Crown had discharged its burden of proof.

The court meticulously evaluated the evidence presented in relation to each charge. The complainant alleged that the defendant began sexually abusing her when she was about 11 years old and that the abuse continued over several years and at various addresses. The defendant denied any sexual abuse and claimed that any sexual relationship began only after the complainant turned 16 and was consensual. The court had to determine the truthfulness and reliability of the complainant's testimony, considering her demeanour and any other relevant factors.

After thorough consideration, the court found the defendant guilty on 12 of the 15 charges, including multiple counts of rape and indecent treatment of a child under 16. The court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Crown had proved the essential elements of these charges. Conversely, the court found the defendant not guilty on three counts, concluding that the Crown had not discharged its burden of proof for those particular charges.

In conclusion, the court ordered the defendant to be found guilty on 12 counts and not guilty on 3 counts. The specific verdicts and subsequent sentencing are detailed in the court's final orders, which will determine the defendant's punishment for the offences found proven.

Orders

Orders of the court

Count 1: Guilty

Count 2: Guilty

Count 3: Guilty

Count 4: Guilty

Count 5: Guilty

Count 6: Guilty

Count 7: Guilty

Count 8: Guilty

Count 9: Guilty

Count 10: Guilty

Count 11: Not guilty

Count 12: Not guilty

Count 13: Not guilty

Count 14: Guilty

Count 15: Guilty

Background

Background to the litigation

As indicated above, there are 15 charges to consider. Each one of those charges will require individual consideration. This will involve considering each charge separately, evaluating the evidence relating to that particular charge, and deciding whether I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecution has proved the essential elements of that charge. The evidence in relation to the separate offences is different. Different offences have different elements. Separate verdicts will be necessary in relation to each charge. The mere fact that I might reach a particular verdict in relation to one or more of the charges does not mean that I must reach that same verdict in relation to any one or more of the remaining charges. As indicated above, each of the 15 charges here involves the same complainant. If I have a reasonable doubt concerning the truthfulness or reliability of her evidence in relation to one or more of the counts, whether by reference to her demeanour or for any other reason, then that is a matter which I must take into account in assessing the truthfulness or reliability of her evidence generally.Background The complainant was born on 1 November 1983. [3] She was one of five children born to B and her then husband E. She first met the defendant in about 1994 at a time when she lived with her mother and four siblings in the Townville suburb of Rasmussen. The accused, who was born on 15 November 1951,[4] lived with his four sons in the nearby suburb of Cranbrook. The complainant, then aged about 11, met the defendant through her association with two of his sons. It seems clear that the two single parents began to develop a relationship and the two families began living together at an address in Jewel Street at Rasmussen in May 1995.[5] Subsequently, in July 1995, the families moved to an address at Pinnacle Drive, also in the suburb of Rasmussen.[6] From there, the families moved, in 1996, to live in Greenvale where they occupied a large building previously used as a barracks for railway workers. In Greenvale the relationship between the two parents broke down and the complainant’s mother formed a relationship with another man with whom she moved to live with in Ingham. In circumstances to which I shall later refer, the complainant remained in Greenvale with the defendant and a number of his sons. They returned to Townsville in 1998 and lived together at an address at Pinari Street, Kurrajong before moving, in turn, to addresses in Ganet Street, Condon, Hazard Street, Rasmussen, and Frank Street at Kirwan.[3] Exhibit 18[4] T4-5 line 5[5] Exhibit 23[6] Exhibit 24 The complainant alleges that the defendant had begun to sexually abuse during the time that the family lived together at Jewel Street in Rasmussen. On her account, the abuse, including the offences of rape, continued at the various addresses set out above. During that time she gave birth to five children, including one who was conceived before her sixteenth birthday, with the defendant in each case being the father. The defendant’s account, in broad terms, is that there was no sexual abuse of any kind. He is not the father of the first two children and maintains that it was only after the complainant had turned 16 that he commenced a consensual sexual relationship with her. The last three children were born of that consensual relationship following consensual acts of sexual intercourse.The Charges

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

To establish the guilt of the defendant in respect of this offence, the Crown must prove not only those elements of common assault as set out above when considering Counts 5, 14 and 15, but must further prove that the defendant by the assault did bodily harm to the complainant. This requires proof that the complainant suffered a bodily injury which interfered with health or comfort.Evidence of the complainant The complainant’s account was that within a few weeks of the families commencing to live together at Jewel Court in Rasmussen, the defendant became “more physical” in his activities with her.[8] She described an occasion when the defendant was seated in the kitchen and no one was at home. He grabbed her hand, pulled her over and placed it on the crotch of his pants. She could feel that his penis was hard. He kissed her on the lips and attempted to insert his tongue into her mouth. She thought this activity lasted for about 30 seconds and stopped when they heard someone coming down the hallway. The defendant told her not to say anything to her mother “because there was no point in upsetting her again”.[9] This is the allegation that constitutes Count 2. [8] Transcript of Proceedings of 27 March 2020 T1-7 line 24[9] Ibid T1-14 line 18 Count 3 is said by the complainant to have occurred “a couple of days after Count 2”.[10] It was in the afternoon when no one else was at home. The defendant took the complainant to the bathroom, telling her that he had something to show her. He closed and locked the bathroom door. He sat her down on the bath, again said that he had something to show her and unzipped the front of his green cargo-type pants. He pulled down his underwear and exposed himself and asked her if she liked what she saw. He told her that he had “done all this stuff for (her)” such as buying her toys and giving her money. If she wanted something he would get it for her, but now “(she) had to do something for him”.[11] She was scared and nervous. He told her to undress and lie on a towel that he had placed on the floor, telling her “that he wanted to have sex with (her) from the first time he saw (her)”.[12] He laid on top of her, pushed her knees open and told her that it would only hurt for a little while and she would “end up liking it”.[13] He then inserted his penis in her vagina, telling her to try not to make a noise. She felt a lot of pain in her abdomen but could not move because of his weight. When the defendant sat up, she saw blood on his penis. He told her “that it wasn’t bad” and that she did “a good job not making any noise”. He told her to go “and clean herself up” before her mother returned.[14] After doing that, she went to her bedroom and sat and played with her favourite toy. The defendant came into the bedroom and told her to remember not to say anything “because we’ll get into trouble”.[15] When her mother returned home, the defendant greeted her with a kiss and told her that the complainant “had been a good girl”.[10] Ibid T1-14 line 20[11] Ibid T1-12 line 15[12] Ibid T1-12 line 24[13] Ibid T1-13 line 35[14] Ibid T1-13 line 10[15] Ibid T1-13 line 24

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.