R v NG

Case [2006] QCA 218

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v NG [2006] QCA 218

PARTIES:

R
v
NG
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 329 of 2005
DC No 174 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

16 June 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 June 2006

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Keane JA and Mackenzie J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction is dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY – DEFENCE MATTERS – OTHER MATTERS – DOUBLE JEOPARDY – whether exclusion from school was ‘punishment’ under s 16 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), precluding punishment following convictions for rapes committed upon a fellow student in a schoolyard – whether prosecution was an abuse of process, where school had proceeded administratively against offending student – parens patriae jurisdiction: whether to be invoked to exclude the consequence of the prosecution of a minor – whether multiple charges appropriate

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 45
Acts Interpretation Act 1958 (Vic), s 28
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 2, s 16, s 17, s 29, s 650
Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 7
Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1984 (Qld), s 11
Education (General Provisions) Act 1989 (Qld), s 16, s 33, s 34, s 36, s 47, s 48
Justice Act 1958 (Vic), s 3, s 215
Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 11
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)
Police Regulation Act 1958 (Vic), s 88
Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld), s 2.3
Police Service Administration Regulation 1990 (Qld), s 2.1
Public Service Act 1922 (Cth), s 55
Public Service Act 1958 (Vic)
Public Service Act 1974 (Vic)
Teaching Service Act 1958 (Vic)

The following cases were cited:
Adamson v Queensland Law Society Incorporated [1990] 1 Qd R 498
Al-Kateb v Godwin (2004) 219 CLR 562;  (2004) 78 ALJR 1099
Attorney-General (Vic) v Riach [1978] VR 301
Bodna v Deller& Public Service Appeals Tribunal [1981] VR 183
Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration (1992) 176 CLR 1
Clyne v New South Wales Bar Association (1960) 104 CLR 186
Director of Public Prosecutions v Merriman [1973] AC 584
Fardon v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland (2004) 210 ALR 50
Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112
Kariapper v Wijesinha [1968] AC 717
Kruger v The Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 1
Morrow & Flynnv R(1990) 48 A Crim R 232; [1991] 2 Qd R 309
New South Wales Bar Association v Evatt (1968) 117 CLR 177
Pennisi v Wyvill and O’Sullivan (1994) 74 A Crim R 168
Police Service Board v Morris& Martin (1985) 156 CLR 397
R v Brombey [1952] QWN 32
R v Redgard [1956] St R Qd 1
R v T [1993] 1 Qd R 454
R v White; ex parte Byrnes (1963) 109 CLR 665
Re Tracey; ex parte Ryan

Continue reading R v NG

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v NG [2006] QCA 218
Case
[2006] QCA 218
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v NG involved a dispute concerning the criminal liability of the appellant, NG, who was convicted of multiple counts of rape. The victim, a fellow student, was assaulted in a schoolyard. The appellant was subsequently excluded from school. The appellant contested the conviction, arguing that the exclusion from school constituted a form of punishment under section 16 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), thereby precluding further punishment. Additionally, the appellant argued that the prosecution constituted an abuse of process given the school had already taken administrative action against the appellant. The High Court was required to determine whether the exclusion from school amounted to punishment, if the prosecution was an abuse of process, and whether the parens patriae jurisdiction should have been invoked to exclude the consequence of the prosecution.

The court examined the nature of the school's exclusion of the appellant as a form of punishment under the criminal code. It was determined that the exclusion was not punitive in nature but rather a protective measure aimed at ensuring the safety and well-being of the student body. The court found that the exclusion did not preclude the prosecution for the rapes committed, as it did not constitute punishment within the meaning of the statute. Furthermore, the court held that the prosecution was not an abuse of process, as the school's administrative action did not preclude the criminal proceedings. The parens patriae jurisdiction was also not invoked to exclude the consequence of the prosecution of a minor, as the court found that the prosecution was appropriate given the serious nature of the offences committed.

In conclusion, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed. The court upheld the convictions for the rapes committed by the appellant, finding that the exclusion from school did not preclude the prosecution and that the prosecution was not an abuse of process. The court determined that the parens patriae jurisdiction did not apply to exclude the consequence of the prosecution of a minor in this instance. The serious nature of the offences warranted the prosecution, and the exclusion from school did not constitute punishment that would preclude further punishment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction is dismissed

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.