R v PFW

[2025] QDCPR 11

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v PFW [2025] QDCPR 11

PARTIES:

THE KING

v

PFW

FILE NO:

Indictment No. 2460/22

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Ruling

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

20 February 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 February 2025

JUDGE:

Everson DCJ

ORDER:

Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS – STATEMENTS – VOLUNTARY STATEMENTS –  PERSON IN AUTHORITY – where the complainant was the complainant in the prosecution of a sexual offence – where the complainant recorded a series of telephone conversations between the complainant and the applicant –where the applicant made admissions against interest and admissions to offending charged – whether it would be unfair to allow the telephone conversations to be admitted into evidence at trial  

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Law Amendment Act 1894 (Qld) s 10

Evidence Act  1977 (Qld) s 130

CASES:

R v Anderson [2008] QDC 137

R v Burt [2001] QdR 28

R v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159

COUNSEL:

Mr Francis for the Crown

Ms O’Connor for the Applicant

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown

MacDonald Law for the Applicant

Introduction

1. This is an application by the defendant seeking an order that recorded telephone conversations between the applicant and the complainant are not admissible evidence in his trial. 

2. The primary basis for the application is s 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1894 (“CLAA”) which states:

   No confession which is tendered in evidence on any criminal proceeding shall be received which has been induced by any threat or promise by some person in authority, and every confession made after such threat or promise shall be deemed to have been induced thereby unless the contrary be shown.

3. In the alternative, this evidence is sought to be excluded in the exercise of the court’s discretion on the basis that it would be unfair to admit the recorded telephone conversations into evidence. In this regard, reliance is placed on s 130 of the Evidence Act 1977 (“EA”) which states:

   Nothing in this Act derogates from the power of the court in a criminal proceeding to exclude evidence if the court is satisfied that it would be unfair to the person in charge to admit that evidence.

   The telephone conversations

4. The applicant is charged with one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child, six counts of rape, two counts of unlawful anal intercourse with a child under 16, and three counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16.  The offending allegedly took place between 1 January 1994 and 11 October 1996.  The complainant is now a 44-year-old woman being born on 12 October 1980.[1]  At the time of the alleged offending she was between 13 and 15 years of age and the defendant was in his early 30s.[2]

   [1]Ex. 2, Pre-recorded evidence of Complainant, 18 December 2024, T1 – 5, ll 20–21.

   [2]Submissions of the Applicant, para 2.

5. The complainant first contacted police in late 2021.  Police organised pre-text telephone…