R v Porter - [2021] ACTSC 266

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Porter
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 266
Hearing Date:	5 October 2021
DecisionDate:	14 October 2021
Before:	Loukas-Karlsson J
Decision:	See [39]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Ground Rules Hearing – intermediary appointed for “prescribed witness” – consideration of intermediary report and recommendations – directions made pursuant to s 4AF Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT)
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 56, 64, 65, 66 Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) ss 4AA, 4AB, 4AC, 4AD, 4AE, 4AF, 4AK, 4AM, 42, 74 Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Act 2019 (ACT) Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulation 2009 (ACT) reg 3B Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) ss 26, 29, 41
Cases Cited:	R v QX (No 6) [2021] ACTSC 248
Parties:	The Queen ( Crown) Stephen James Porter ( Offender)
Representation:	Counsel A Chatterton ( Crown) J Pappas ( Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Hugo Law Group ( Offender)
File Number:	SCC 40 of 2021

LOUKAS-KARLSSON J:

Introduction

On 27 May 2021, the Registrar directed that a ground rules hearing be held for Wesley Mason (the victim) pursuant to s 4AB of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) (EMP Act). The name Wesley Mason is a pseudonym. It is not permissible to refer to the victim’s real name: s 74 EMP Act. The victim is a “prescribed witness” within the meaning of reg 3B(1)(a) of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulation 2009 (ACT) and s 42(c) of the EMP Act. On 2 September 2021, McWilliam AJ appointed an intermediary for the victim pursuant to s 4AK of the EMP Act and confirmed the ground rules hearing date. The ground rules hearing proceeded before me on 5 October 2021, and I reserved my decision as to the directions to be made pursuant to s 4AF of the EMP Act. Orders and reasons now follow.

of MatterBackground

On 2 September 2021, Stephen Porter (the offender) was arraigned and entered pleas of guilty to the following offences:

(a) Count 1: Use child under 12 years of age to produce child exploitation material, contrary to s 64(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act). Count 1 is in respect of the victim Alexander Goodwin.

(b) Count 2: Engage in a sexual relationship with a child under special care, contrary to s 56(1) of the Crimes Act. Count 2 is in respect of the victim Wesley Mason.

(c) Count 3: Engage in conduct with a young person with the intention of making it more likely that the young person would commit or take part in an act of a sexual nature (grooming), contrary to s 66(1)(b) of the Crimes Act. Count 3 is in respect of the victim Riley Priestley.

(d) Count 4: Possess child exploitation material, contrary to s 65(1) of the Crimes Act.

Pursuant to s 74 of the EMP Act, the victims have been anonymised by…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Porter

Details

AGLC: R v Porter [2021] ACTSC 266
Case: [2021] ACTSC 266
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Porter is a criminal matter heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory before Loukas-Karlsson J. The offender, Stephen James Porter, had entered pleas of guilty to multiple counts of sexual offences against three victims. The victim relevant to the ground rules hearing, Wesley Mason, had an intermediary appointed for him, Ms Sarah Cocco. The intermediary prepared a report detailing Wesley's communication needs, which was considered by the Court during the ground rules hearing. The legal issue for the Court to decide was what directions should be made pursuant to s 4AF of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) (EMP Act). The Court considered each of the recommendations contained in the intermediary report and made directions for the disputed facts hearing as to the questioning of Wesley.

Orders