CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: R v PNX [2020] QChC 32 PARTIES: R
v PNX
(Defendant)
FILE NO: 043/20 DIVISION: Criminal PROCEEDING: Trial ORIGINATING COURT: Childrens Court of Queensland at Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:
30 October 2020
DELIVERED AT: Ipswich HEARING DATE: 14, 15 October 2020 at Toowoomba and 29 October 2020 at Ipswich JUDGE: Lynch QC DCJ VERDICT: Count 1: Not guilty
Count 2: Not guilty Count 3: Not guilty
ORDER: PNX is formally discharged in respect of indictment number 43 of 2020. CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – SEXUAL OFFENCES – TRIAL HAD
BEFORE A JUDGE WITHOUT JURY – where the defendant is charged with two counts of rape and one count of sexual assault – where the trial proceeded before a judge alone without a jury – whether the Crown has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant raped the complainant – whether the Crown has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant sexually assaulted the complainant – where the credit of the complainant is in issue – whether the lie of the defendant was told out of a consciousness of guilt – whether a statement by the defendant contained in a text message was an admission or confession of guilt
LEGISLATION: Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 103
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 21AK, s 93A
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 6, s 348, s 349, s 352, s 644
CASES: R v Caulfield [2012] QCA 204 COUNSEL: M Le Grand for the Crown
D Jones for the Defendant
SOLICITORS: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown
Legal Aid Queensland for the Defendant
Proceedings
PNX is charged before the Children’s Court of Queensland at Ipswich, on indictment number 43 of 2020, with the following offences:
Count 1:That on a date unknown between the thirty-first day of May, 2018 and the ninth day of August, 2018 at Highfields in the State of Queensland, PNX raped RTC.
Count 2:That on the third day of August, 2018 at Highfields in the State of Queensland, PNX raped RTC.
Count 3:That on the eighth day of August, 2018 at Highfields in the State of Queensland, PNX unlawfully and indecently assaulted RTC.
The indictment was presented in Toowoomba on 4 June 2020. On 13 August 2020, an election was made pursuant to s 103 of the Youth Justice Act 1992, for trial of these charges before a judge sitting without a jury. When arraigned before me in Toowoomba on 14 October 2020, the defendant entered pleas of not guilty to each count. As a consequence, the trial commenced before me, sitting without a jury. Evidence was taken in Toowoomba on 14 and 15 October 2020, and the trial was then adjourned to 29 October 2020 at Ipswich. The evidence and counsel’s submissions were completed on that day.
I have reached the conclusion PNX should be found not guilty of all counts. These are my reasons.
Evidence
In all, the evidence of 8 witnesses was admitted. Five of the witnesses…
Continue reading R v PNX
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v PNX [2020] QChC 32
- Case
- [2020] QChC 32
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the complainant's account of the incidents, where she alleged that the defendant had engaged in non-consensual sexual acts on multiple occasions. The prosecution argued that the defendant's text messages and his denial to a detective of any sexual involvement indicated a consciousness of guilt. However, the judge found several deficiencies in the complainant's testimony, leading to the conclusion that her evidence could not be accepted beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that while the complainant's account, if believed, would establish the elements of the charged offences, it could not be accepted as the sole evidence due to inconsistencies and other factors affecting her credibility.
Given the findings, the court determined that the Crown had not met the required standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the defendant was formally discharged in respect of the indictment. The court's decision hinged on the assessment of the complainant's evidence and the absence of corroborative evidence from other sources. This outcome underscores the importance of the standard of proof in criminal cases and the necessity for reliable and consistent testimony to secure a conviction.
Orders
Orders of the court
PNX is formally discharged in respect of indictment number 43 of 2020.
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
The elements of the rape offences, as charged here, are:Count 1: (digital penetration rape):1.The defendant inserted his finger or fingers into the vagina of RTC;2.That was without the consent of RTC. In proof of each count, the prosecution relies upon the evidence of RTC. It is conceded there is no other evidence independently capable of proving the charges beyond reasonable doubt. For count 1, the prosecution relies upon the account of RTC that on an occasion she met with the defendant near K block, he put his hand into her pants and inserted two fingers into her vagina without her consent. RTC said that conduct occurred, that she did not consent to it, that she told the defendant beforehand she did not want to participate, and she actively resisted. For count 2, the prosecution relies upon the account of RTC that on 3 August 2018, she met with the defendant at the shopping centre, the defendant led her into the bush and forced her onto the ground, the defendant removed her and his shorts, and the defendant got on top of her and inserted his penis into her vagina. RTC said that occurred despite her protests and telling the defendant she did not wish to participate, telling him “no” and to stop. RTC maintained that activity occurred without her consent. For count 3, the prosecution relies upon the account of RTC that on 8 August 2018, she met with the defendant after school, he led her into the bush, he commenced kissing her against her will, she pushed him away and he grabbed her breasts, before she again managed to push him away. RTC maintained she did not consent to that activity. The prosecution relies upon the text messages as including a statement which should be construed as an admission or confession that whatever occurred on 3/8/2018 was without the consent of RTC. In particular, the prosecution assert RTC messaged “ u did something to me” and “ur acting like it didn’t happen like you didn’t want to do it”, to which the defendant replied “I did but u didn’t”. In addition, the prosecution rely upon the defendant’s denial to Det Bryant of any sexual involvement as a lie evidencing a consciousness of guilt. The prosecution argue that is proved to be a lie by the finding The evidence of RTC is capable of proving the elements of each of the charged offences. If accepted, her evidence would prove that the defendant inserted his fingers into her vagina without her consent (count 1), inserted his penis into her vagina without her consent (count 2), and kissed her on the mouth and groped her breasts without her consent (count 3). For count 3 it is not disputed by the defence that if it occurred, the activity described, namely kissing her on the mouth and groping her breasts, was both unlawful and indecent. The real issue in respect of each count is whether it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt the charged activity actually occurred. The central issue in this case is as to the credibility and reliability of RTC’s claims. As noted above, if accepted beyond reasonable doubt, the evidence of RTC is capable of proving each of the charges. However, I have concluded her evidence of each of the specific allegations which is the basis of these charges cannot be accepted beyond reasonable doubt. There are a number of deficiencies in RTC’s evidence which result in that conclusion.