R v Scott

[2022] NSWDC 266

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Scott [2022] NSWDC 266

Hearing dates:

28/6/22-7/7/22, 14/7/22

Date of orders:

14/7/22

Decision date:

14 July 2022

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Bourke SC DCJ

Decision:

Verdict of Not Guilty to Count 1.

Verdict of Guilty to Count 2.

Catchwords:

Crime – Judge alone trial – Verdict – Unlawfully cause person to ingest stupefying drug with intent to commit indictable offence of sexual assault – Teacher have homosexual intercourse with pupil under 18 years.

Legislation Cited:

Criminal Procedure Act 1986

Cases Cited:

Prouten v Chapman [2021] NSWCA 207

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

NSW DPP – Crown
Peter Wayne Scott - Accused

Representation:

Mr J Mehta for Crown
Mr Z Khan for Accused

File Number(s):

2020/341820

Publication restriction:

Crimes Act s.578A - non-publication of the identities of the complainant, the tendency witnesses, and any other witness who was a child at the time of the alleged offences. Names of those witnesses anonymised.

verdict and reasons

General matters

1. The Accused is charged on an indictment containing two counts which are as follows:-

1. That between 1 December 1984 and 31 December 1984, in Sydney, he did unlawfully cause DH to ingest a stupefying drug, and did so with the intent to enable him to commit the indictable offence of sexual assault upon the said DH.

2. That between 1 December 1984 and 31 December 1984, in Sydney, he did have homosexual intercourse with DH, a male person above the age of 10 years and under the age of 18 years, namely 16 years old, during a time upon which he worked as a schoolteacher at Cromer High School and the said DH was a pupil.

2. The trial of the Accused proceeded by Judge alone, pursuant to orders made by Judge Yehia SC (as Yehia J then was).

3. In this judgement I record my verdicts, and reasons for reaching those verdicts.

4. In reaching my verdicts, I must take into account any warning, direction or comment which by law would be required to be given or made to a jury.

Onus / Standard of proof / Presumption of innocence

5. The Crown bears the onus of proving the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The Accused is presumed to be innocent unless the Crown satisfies me beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt of one or both of the offences. There is no onus on the Accused to prove anything, or to tender or give evidence.

6. Beyond reasonable doubt are ordinary words and represent the highest standard of proof known to our law.

Assessing the evidence / Applying common sense

7. In assessing the evidence, and in determining whether the Crown has satisfied me of the guilt of the Accused, I must approach the task with an open and unbiased mind, act logically, rationally, and not capriciously. Although in carrying out that task, I should apply common sense, my verdict must be based only on the evidence called in the trial.

8. In assessing the evidence I am entitled and expected to…