R v Simmons

Case [2014] QDC 303

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Simmons [2014] QDC 303

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

(applicant/Crown)

v

SIMMONS, Iain Bruce
(respondent/defendant)

FILE NO:

Indictment no. 353/2014

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Application pursuant to s 590AA(3) Criminal Code for leave to re-open pre-trial ruling

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

28 November 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

HEARING DATE:

18 November 2014

JUDGE:

Rafter SC, DCJ

ORDERS:

1.        Application for leave to re-open pre-trial ruling made on 7 April 2014 granted.

2.        The ruling made on 7 April 2014 excluding the evidence relating to the defendant having had sexual intercourse with B, be set aside.

3.        Rule that the evidence relating to the defendant having had sexual intercourse with B is admissible. 

CATCHWORDS:

PRE-TRIAL APPLICATION – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO RE-OPEN PRE-TRIAL RULING – application to re-open ruling to order the exclusion of evidence – whether leave should be granted to re-open the pre-trial ruling – whether special reasons exist to justify re-opening the ruling

EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY – RELEVANCE – SEXUAL OFFENCES - where the applicant seeks to lead evidence that the respondent had consensual sexual intercourse with the complainant’s friend the morning of the alleged offences – where the evidence forms part of the narrative of events - whether the evidence is relevant - whether the evidence should be excluded in the exercise of judicial discretion

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 590AA

Baker v The Queen (2004) 223 CLR 513, cited

BBH v The Queen (2012) 245 CLR 499, cited

Driscoll v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 517, cited

Festa v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 593, cited

HML v The Queen (2008) 235 CLR 334, cited

O’Leary v The King (1946) 73 CLR 566, cited

Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461, cited

R v BCU [2014] QCA 292, cited

R v Dunning; ex-parte Attorney General (Qld) [2007] QCA 176, cited

R v Goulden [1993] 2 Qd R 534, cited

R v Pettigrew [2001] QCA 468, cited

R v Playford [2013] 2 Qd R 567, cited

R v Steindl [2002] 2 Qd R 542, cited

Stevens v The Queen (2005) 227 CLR 319, cited

COUNSEL:

K L Overell for applicant/Crown

A Boe for the respondent/defendant

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the applicant/Crown

Nyst Legal for the respondent/defendant

Introduction

  1. The defendant is charged with the following offences:

Count 1             that on 24 March 2013 at Brisbane he unlawfully and indecently

assaulted A;

Count 2             that on 24 March 2013 at Brisbane he raped A.

  1. The matter was listed for trial before his Honour Judge Horneman-Wren SC on 7 April 2014. However the matter proceeded as an application pursuant to s 590AA Criminal Code.  One issue the subject of the application related to the admissibility of evidence of consensual sexual intercourse between the defendant and B who lived with the complainant.  The incident of sexual intercourse between the defendant and B occurred shortly before the alleged…

Continue reading R v Simmons

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Simmons [2014] QDC 303
Case
[2014] QDC 303
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Simmons involved an application by the respondent to re-open a pre-trial ruling which had excluded certain evidence. The respondent sought leave to introduce evidence that the complainant had consensual sexual intercourse with a friend of the complainant on the morning of the alleged offences. The application was heard in the relevant court, which considered the merits of re-opening the pre-trial ruling and the admissibility of the evidence.

The court was required to decide whether the application for leave to re-open the pre-trial ruling should be granted and if there were special reasons to justify the re-opening of the ruling. In addition, the court had to determine whether the evidence in question was relevant and should be excluded in the exercise of judicial discretion. The respondent argued that the evidence was relevant to the narrative of events and should not be excluded.

The court granted the application for leave to re-open the pre-trial ruling, finding that special reasons did exist to justify re-opening the ruling. The court held that the evidence relating to the respondent having had sexual intercourse with the complainant’s friend was relevant and should not be excluded. The court set aside the previous ruling that had excluded this evidence and ruled that it was admissible.

The final orders of the court included granting the application for leave to re-open the pre-trial ruling, setting aside the ruling that had excluded the evidence, and ruling that the evidence relating to the respondent having had sexual intercourse with the complainant’s friend was admissible.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to re-open pre-trial ruling made on 7 April 2014 granted.

2. The ruling made on 7 April 2014 excluding the evidence relating to the defendant having had sexual intercourse with B, be set aside.

3. Rule that the evidence relating to the defendant having had sexual intercourse with B is admissible.

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

Full text does not contain this section.