R v Szabo - [2020] ACTSC 175

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Szabo
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 175
Hearing Dates:	23 – 29 June 2020
DecisionDate:	3 July 2020
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	The accused is found not guilty on both counts in the indictment.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judge Alone Trial – Recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm – intentionally and unlawfully suffocate infant – circumstantial case – expert evidence – verdict
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 20, 27(3) Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) s 48(1) Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 68B
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Luke Szabo (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel A Williamson (Crown) M Jones (Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi Law (Accused)
File Numbers:	SCC 258 of 2019; SCC 323 of 2019

ELKAIM J:

On 3 June 2020, the accused elected for a judge alone trial under s 68B of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT).

A fresh indictment containing two counts was handed up at the commencement of the hearing. The accused was arraigned. He pleaded not guilty to both counts.

The first charge is that on 1 June 2019 the accused recklessly inflicted grievous bodily harm on MH (SCCAN3821/2019), contrary to s 20 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The second charge, which is in the alternative, is that on the same date he choked, suffocated or strangled MH so as to render him unconscious (CC8195/2019), contrary to s 27(3)(a) of the Crimes Act.

On 1 June 2019 MH was 11 months of age. He experienced a choking episode which the Crown says was the result of the accused, in an act of frustration and in an endeavour to quieten the crying child, putting tissues into MH’s mouth. The grievous bodily harm was constituted by the effects of the accused’s actions. The Crown, in an email to the accused’s solicitors, put the allegation in this way:

We say the GBH suffered is the constellation of harm culminating in a medical episode causing respiratory difficulty and hypoxic injury and unconsciousness arising from a foreign object obstructing the infant’s airway.

The Crown, for purposes of the second count, identified the criminal act as the suffocation of MH.

Following the opening made by the Crown, I had the benefit of a short opening on behalf of the accused. As a result of what I was told it was quickly apparent that the primary issue in the trial was whether or not it was the accused who had inserted the tissues into MH’s mouth or whether the child had done so himself. The secondary issue was whether or not the accused had been reckless in his actions. There was no dispute MH had suffered grievous bodily harm.

Before going further I think it important to set out a number of directions which I am obliged to give to myself.

The Crown must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is presumed to be innocent. Suspicion and probability must…

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 Szabo

Details

AGLC: R v Szabo [2020] ACTSC 175
Case: [2020] ACTSC 175
Decision Date: 3 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Szabo involved the respondent, Szabo, who was charged with recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm and intentionally and unlawfully suffocating an infant. The trial was conducted before a single judge in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria. The prosecution presented a circumstantial case against Szabo, relying heavily on expert evidence to establish the cause of the infant's injuries and death.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the prosecution had established the requisite elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt. This involved scrutinising the sufficiency and reliability of the circumstantial evidence, as well as the expert testimony. The court had to consider whether the evidence provided a reliable basis to conclude that Szabo had committed the alleged offences. The defence argued that the evidence was insufficient and unreliable, and that any conclusions drawn from it were speculative.

The court found that the prosecution had not discharged the burden of proving the offences beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence was deemed circumstantial and insufficiently reliable to support a conviction on either count. The court highlighted the critical role of expert evidence in the case and noted that the experts' opinions were not unequivocal, leaving room for reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court acquitted Szabo on both counts, finding him not guilty of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm and of intentionally and unlawfully suffocating the infant.

Orders

Orders of the court

The accused is found not guilty on both counts in the indictment.

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.