R v SJB - [2018] QDC 220

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v SJB [2018] QDC 220

PARTIES:

R

V

SJB

FILE NO/S:

654/18

DIVISION:

Crime

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

Delivered ex tempore on 1 November 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Beenleigh

HEARING DATE:

1 November 2018

JUDGE:

Porter QC DCJ

ORDER:

1. To the extent the evidence in the tape recording comprises evidence of preliminary complaint, it be admitted into evidence at this trial.

2. The tape recording, though an exhibit in the trial, not be available in the jury room.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – GENERALLY – where complaint attended at a police station to make a complaint about offending – where details were taken by uniformed officer in an interview room – where uniformed officer recorded the interview – where recorded interview was never put into statement form or signed by the complaint – where complaint later gave signed statement to police officers – whether the recorded interview was a ‘formal witness statement’ – whether the evidence is admissible pursuant to s 4A Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 (Qld) – whether the tape recording should be available in the jury room.

Legislation

Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 (Qld) s 4A

Evidence Act 1997 (Qld) s 93A

Cases

R v DBA [2012] QCA 49

COUNSEL:

C Farnsworth for the prosecution

J Fraser for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Office of Director of Public Prosecutions for the prosecution

Fallu McMillan Lawyers for the defendant

The issue

In this trial the prosecution has indicated an intention to call evidence from a Constable Weibel, as preliminary complaint evidence. The defence objects. Mr Fraser for the defendant submits that the evidence is inadmissible because it is not admissible as preliminary complaint evidence under section 4A of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 (Qld) and, I reasonably infer, not otherwise admissible. Ms Farnsworth for the Crown submits the evidence is admissible under section 4A. Issue is thus joined.

The facts

The facts are these: the defendant is charged, relevantly, with raping his daughter on four occasions between 2000 and 2005, and also with three assaults over that period, including two of a sexual nature.
The evidence given by Ms B, the complainant, is that, relevantly, in about 2013 she disclosed the offending to her then-boyfriend. Her then-boyfriend gave evidence that in the course of discussions about the alleged offending at around that time, Ms B said she was going to stab her father and he said that he urged her not to put herself in jail, but to put SJB in jail. Thereafter Ms B apparently took his advice and went to the police. To the extent there was any doubt about Ms B’s intention in going to the police, in cross-examination her then-boyfriend agreed that the plan was that she would make a formal complaint and SJB would be charged. Ms B then attended the Ipswich Police Station on the 5th of May 2013. Constable Weibel’s witness statement takes up the story…

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 SJB

Details

AGLC: R v SJB [2018] QDC 220
Case: [2018] QDC 220
Decision Date: 1 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v SJB, the case before the court involved a criminal procedure dispute regarding the admissibility of a recorded interview. The complainant in the case attended a police station to report an offence and was interviewed by a uniformed officer in an interview room. The interview was recorded, but the recording was not put into a statement form or signed by the complainant. Later, the complainant gave a signed statement to other police officers. The primary issue for the court to determine was whether the recorded interview constituted a ‘formal witness statement’ under the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 (Qld). The court also had to consider whether the recorded interview was admissible as evidence and whether the tape recording should be available to the jury during their deliberations.

The court examined the definition of a ‘formal witness statement’ under section 4A of the Act and considered whether the recorded interview met the statutory requirements. It found that the recorded interview did not constitute a formal witness statement because it was not signed by the complainant. However, the court acknowledged that the recording still contained relevant evidence of the complainant's preliminary complaint, which could be admitted under the Act. Regarding the availability of the tape recording to the jury, the court held that, while the recording was an exhibit in the trial, it should not be available in the jury room to avoid potential prejudice to the accused.

Ultimately, the court admitted the evidence in the tape recording, to the extent it comprised evidence of the preliminary complaint, into evidence at the trial. However, it ruled that the tape recording, though an exhibit in the trial, should not be available in the jury room to prevent any potential prejudice to the accused. These findings provided clarity on the admissibility of recorded interviews in sexual offence cases and the appropriate use of such recordings in jury deliberations.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. To the extent the evidence in the tape recording comprises evidence of preliminary complaint, it be admitted into evidence at this trial.

2. The tape recording, though an exhibit in the trial, not be available in the jury room.

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.

CITATION:	R v SJB [2018] QDC 220
PARTIES:	R V SJB
FILE NO/S:	654/18
DIVISION:	Crime
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Beenleigh
DELIVERED ON:	Delivered ex tempore on 1 November 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Beenleigh
HEARING DATE:	1 November 2018
JUDGE:	Porter QC DCJ
ORDER:	1. To the extent the evidence in the tape recording comprises evidence of preliminary complaint, it be admitted into evidence at this trial. 2. The tape recording, though an exhibit in the trial, not be available in the jury room.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – GENERALLY – where complaint attended at a police station to make a complaint about offending – where details were taken by uniformed officer in an interview room – where uniformed officer recorded the interview – where recorded interview was never put into statement form or signed by the complaint – where complaint later gave signed statement to police officers – whether the recorded interview was a ‘formal witness statement’ – whether the evidence is admissible pursuant to s 4A Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 (Qld) – whether the tape recording should be available in the jury room. Legislation Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 (Qld) s 4A Evidence Act 1997 (Qld) s 93A Cases R v DBA [2012] QCA 49
COUNSEL:	C Farnsworth for the prosecution J Fraser for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Office of Director of Public Prosecutions for the prosecution Fallu McMillan Lawyers for the defendant