R v PS - [2022] QChC 5

CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v PS [2022] QChC 5

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

V

PS

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

26/21

DIVISION:

Crime

PROCEEDING:

Trial

DELIVERED ON:

19 April 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Maroochydore

HEARING DATES:

8 March 2022, 9 March 2022, 10 March 2022

JUDGE:

Cash QC DCJ

VERDICTS:

Count 1: Not Guilty

Count 2: Not Guilty

Count 3: Not guilty

Count 4: Not guilty

Count 5: Not guilty

Count 6: Not guilty

LEGISLATION:
Childrens Court Act 1992 (Qld), s 23
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 210, s 349, s 615B, s 615C
Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 (Qld), s 4A
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 21AVs, 21AU, s 21AW

Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 98(2)(a), s 102

CASES:
Bromley v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 315
R v DAH (2004) 150 A Crim R 14; [2004] QCA 419
R v FAX [2020] QCA 139
Robinson v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 162, [25] to [26]

Woolmington v The Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] UKHL 1; (1935) AC 462

COUNSEL:

R J Marks for the prosecution
A E Cappellano for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the prosecution
Aitken Whyte Lawyers for the defendant

Introduction

The defendant, whom I will refer to as PS, was charged on indictment with six alleged offences. Three of the charges were allegations of rape and three were allegations of indecent treatment of a child under the age of 12. The alleged victim in each charge was a young girl, MPM. The defendant is MPM’s uncle. He was about 13½ years old at the time of the alleged offences. PS elected to be tried by a judge sitting without a jury.[1] Over three days I heard evidence and submissions. Having considered the evidence and the relevant law, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of any of the alleged offences. What follows are my reasons for reaching this conclusion. It is convenient to commence with a summary of the evidence in the trial.
[1]Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 102.

The evidence

The prosecution called the complainant and five other witnesses. The defendant did not give evidence, call witnesses, or adduce evidence. Before I turn to a summary of their evidence it may help to set out the relationships between various witnesses. Because it is appropriate to make these reasons publicly available while also preserving the anonymity of both the defendant and the complainant, I have substituted letters for the names of most witnesses. The result is these reasons are more difficult to read, but I hope the following summary of relationships assists.

The complainant’s mother is the defendant’s older sister. The mother of the defendant and his sister is Mrs PD, who is therefore also the grandmother of the complainant MPM. Mrs PD is married to Mr PP, who is also the father of the defendant and his sister, and grandfather to MPM. The complainant’s father is DRM. At…

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 PS

Details

AGLC: R v PS [2022] QChC 5
Case: [2022] QChC 5
Decision Date: 19 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, PS, was charged with six offences, including three counts of rape and three counts of indecent treatment of a child under 12. PS was the uncle of the complainant, MPM, who alleged that PS had sexually abused her on two separate occasions. PS was 13½ years old at the time of the alleged offences. The case was heard over three days by Cash QC DCJ, sitting alone, in the Childrens Court of Queensland. After considering the evidence, the judge was not satisfied that PS was guilty of any of the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt. The main issues were the reliability of MPM's account of the alleged offences and whether the prosecution proved the necessary elements of the alleged offences. The evidence of PS's grandmother, Mrs PD, created a reasonable doubt about the accuracy of MPM's account of the alleged offences. Mrs PD's evidence established that MPM was not out of her sight for long enough for the alleged offences to have occurred as described by MPM. As such, the judge was not satisfied that MPM's account was truthful and accurate, and therefore PS was not guilty of any of the alleged offences.

Orders