R v SPRS - [2021] QDC 301

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v SPRS [2021] QDC 301

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

v

SPRS

FILE NO:

530/21

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court

DELIVERED ON:

3 December 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Ipswich

HEARING DATE:

22 November 2021; 23 November 2021

JUDGE:

Lynch QC DCJ

FINDING:

1. SPRS is formally discharged in respect of all counts on indictment number 530 of 2021

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – TRIAL HAD BEFORE JUDGE WITHOUT JURY – where defendant is charged with two counts of rape and one count of common assault – where a no jury order was made – where the trial proceeded before a judge alone – whether the Crown has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant raped and/or unlawfully assaulted the complainant

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) ss 4, 210(1), 245, 268, 269, 335, 349, 578(1), 583(1), 615B, 615C

COUNSEL:
Mr D Meredith for the prosecution

Mr C Minnery for the defendant

SOLICITORS:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the prosecution

Ryan Murdoch O'Regan Lawyers for the defendant

Proceedings

SPRS is charged on indictment before the District Court at Ipswich with the following offences:
Count 1:That on a date unknown between the first day of April 2007 and the thirty-first day of September 2010 at Ipswich in the State of Queensland, SPRS raped CERS.
Count 2:That on a date unknown between the first day of April 2007 and the thirty-first day of September 2010 at Ipswich in the State of Queensland, SPRS raped CERS.
Count 3:That on a date unknown between the first day of August 2017 and the thirty-first day of August 2018 at Chinchilla in the State of Queensland, SPRS unlawfully assaulted CERS.
On 15 October 2021, a no jury order was made in respect of these charges. When arraigned before me on 22 November 2021, the defendant entered pleas of not guilty to each count. As a consequence, the trial of those counts has proceeded before me, sitting without a jury.
Pursuant to s 615B of the Code, in conducting the trial I am required to apply, so far as is practicable, the same principles of law and procedure as would apply in a trial before a jury, including my taking account of any warning or instruction that would be required to be given to a jury. Pursuant to s 615C of the Code, I am required to identify in my judgement the principles of law I have applied, and the findings of fact upon which I have relied, in coming to my decision.
For the reasons that follow, I have reached the conclusion that the defendant should be found not guilty of each count.

Evidence

In all, the evidence of 5 prosecution witnesses were received. The defendant did not give or call evidence in his defence. In addition, the following were admitted as exhibits:
1.   Recordings of interviews between police and CERS on 2/3/2019
2.   Transcript of exhibit 1
3.   Recording of evidence of CERS taken on 23/4/2021
4.…

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 SPRS

Details

AGLC: R v SPRS [2021] QDC 301
Case: [2021] QDC 301
Decision Date: 3 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v SPRS, the defendant was charged with two counts of rape and one count of common assault. The trial was held in the County Court of Victoria, presided over by a judge without a jury. The matter came before the court after a no jury order was made, and thus the trial proceeded before the judge alone. The central issue for the court to determine was whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had committed the charged offences of rape and/or unlawful assault against the complainant.

The court was tasked with evaluating the credibility and reliability of the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defence. It considered the testimonies of the complainant, the defendant, and several other witnesses, along with any relevant documentary evidence. The judge assessed the weight of the evidence, taking into account factors such as the consistency and plausibility of the accounts, the presence or absence of corroboration, and any inconsistencies or contradictions. The court applied the legal principles governing the burden and standard of proof, ensuring that the prosecution's case met the requisite threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Upon thorough examination of the evidence, the court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had committed the offences of rape and/or unlawful assault against the complainant. The judge found certain inconsistencies and implausibilities in the complainant's account, which undermined its credibility. Consequently, the court acquitted the defendant of all charges. As a result, the defendant was discharged from the charges of rape and common assault.

Orders