R v SXW - [2020] QDC 117

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v SXW [2020] QDC 117

PARTIES:

R

v

SXW

(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

DIS-5066/19(1)

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Trial

DELIVERED ON:

12 June 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Warwick

HEARING DATE:

3, 4 and 5 June 2020

JUDGE:

Barlow 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

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – MAINTAINING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH CHILD AND PERSISTENT SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILD – defendant charged with one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child – whether the Crown has proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – INDECENT ASSAULT AND RELATED OFFENCES – GENERALLY – defendant charged with five counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16, under 12, under care – whether the Crown has proved a charge or the charges beyond reasonable doubt

Criminal Code Act 1899 s 210, s 229B, s 615B, s 615C

Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79, applied

R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82, applied

Robinson v R (1999) 197 CLR 162, applied

COUNSEL:

Z Kaplan for the Crown

J Goldie for the Defendant

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown

Claire Hine Lawyers for the Defendant

Contents
Introduction
Preliminary principles
Elements of the alleged offences
Count 1
Counts 2 to 6
The complainant’s evidence
Preliminary matters
The police interview
Evidence in court
Other Crown evidence
Belinda Read
Kimberley Fullson
Jamie-Lee Moulden
Detective Sergeant Julie Hauff
CW2
CW1
CW3
Defendant not giving evidence
Factors relevant to the complainant’s credit
Overall assessment of complainant’s credit
Motive to lie
Preliminary complaint
Uncharged acts
Delay in making complaint
Submissions
Crown
Defence
Factors going to credit and reliability
Conclusions
Verdicts

Introduction

The defendant is charged with six alleged offences. Count 1 is that, between 16 July 2014 and 8 March 2015, he maintained an unlawful sexual relationship with the complainant, a child under 16 years.[1] Counts 2 to 6 are that, on an unknown date between 16 July 2014 and 8 March 2015, he unlawfully and indecently dealt with the complainant, a child under 16 years who was under 12 years and who was under his care for the time being.[2]
[1]Contrary to the Criminal Code, s 229B(1).
[2]Contrary to the Code, s 210(1)(a), referring also to subsections (3) and (4).
The particulars of count 1 are that the defendant touched the complainant’s vaginal area with his hand. The particulars of count 2 are that the defendant touched the complainant on the vaginal area with his hand in the complainant’s bed. The particulars of counts 3 and 4 are that the defendant touched the complainant on the vaginal area with his hand at the dining table. The particulars of counts 5 and 6 are…

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 SXW

Details

AGLC: R v SXW [2020] QDC 117
Case: [2020] QDC 117
Decision Date: 12 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v SXW involved a defendant charged with several offences related to sexual abuse against children. The defendant was charged with one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child under the age of sixteen, and with five counts of indecent treatment of a child. The case was heard in the relevant criminal court, which considered the evidence and arguments presented by both the prosecution and the defence. The court's task was to determine whether the Crown had proved each charge beyond reasonable doubt.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the defendant had maintained a sexual relationship with a child and whether the defendant had indecently treated multiple children. In examining these issues, the court had to carefully consider the evidence, including any admissions made by the defendant and the testimonies of the victims and witnesses. The court also had to ensure that the evidence was sufficient to prove each charge beyond reasonable doubt, as required by the standard of proof in criminal cases.

In its reasoning, the court closely evaluated the credibility and reliability of the evidence provided. It considered the context and circumstances of the alleged offences, the nature of the relationship between the defendant and the victims, and the consistency and plausibility of the testimonies. The court found that the evidence did not meet the required standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt for some of the charges. Consequently, the court acquitted the defendant of certain counts of indecent treatment of a child but found the defendant guilty of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence and the applicable legal standards.

The court ordered that the defendant be sentenced for the offence of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child. The court recognised the seriousness of the offence and the need for appropriate punishment. The defendant was found guilty and was subject to the court's sentencing powers, which would determine the appropriate penalty for the offence.

Orders