R v Taj

Case [2021] QChC 41

CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

 R v TAJ [2021] QChC 41

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN (prosecution)
v

TAJ (defendant)

FILE NO/S:

48/2020

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Trial – Judge Only

ORIGINATING COURT:

Childrens Court of Queensland, Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

26 November 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Maroochydore

HEARING DATE:

27-29 July 2021

JUDGES:

Long SC, DCJ

ORDER:

The defendant is found guilty.

CATCHWORDS:

TRIAL – JUDGE ALONE – where the defendant is charged with one count of setting fire to standing trees, saplings or shrubs pursuant to s 463(c) of the Criminal Code – where it is not in contention that fire was set to standing trees, saplings or shrubs – whether it was an act by the defendant that resulted in the standing trees, saplings or shrubs being unlawfully set on fire – whether the act was wilful

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), ss 23, 461, 462, 463

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), ss 21A, 93A

Fire and Emergency Services Act 1990 (Qld), s 62

Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), Division 6 of Part 2

CASES:

De Silva v The Queen (2019) 94 ALJR 100

Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193

Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507

Pemble v The Queen (1971) 124 CLR 107

R v Bayden Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308

R v Burnell [1966] Qd R 348

R v Collins [2018] 1 Qd R 364

R v Cormack [2013] QCA 342

R v Dolley [2003] QCA 108

R v Eustance [2009] QCA 28

R v Joinbee [2014] 2 Qd R 69

R v Lockwood; ex parte Attorney-General [1981] Qd R 209

R v Mitchell [2008] 2 Qd R 142

R v Oliver [2016] 2 Qd R 586

R v Perera [1986] 1 Qd R 211

R v SDE [2018] QCA 286

R v Webb; ex parte Attorney-General [1990] 2 Qd R 275

R v Wehlow (2001) 122 A Crim R 63

Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573

Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234

COUNSEL:

AQ Stark for the prosecution

KB Juhasz for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Legal Aid Queensland for the defendant
INDEX
Page

Introduction

4
The allegation 6
Applicable principles 7
The evidence 8
Did the defendant A set fire to the standing vegetation 40
Did the defendant act wilfully 47
Verdict 56

Introduction[1]

[1]This introduction is in reference to the uncontentious facts in this proceeding, including those admitted in Exhibit 9.

  1. The ninth day of September 2019 was a typically fine spring day at Peregian Springs. That afternoon and after school had finished for the day at the Coolum State High School, two male grade nine students, J and B, determined to go to an area in the bushland adjacent to Koel Circuit, Peregian Springs, to smoke some cannabis. They invited two female schoolmates from the same grade, I and the defendant A, to join them. They were waiting for the commencement of Oztag games, later in the evening, at Peregian Springs. The…

Continue reading R v Taj

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Taj [2021] QChC 41
Case
[2021] QChC 41
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Taj, the defendant was charged with setting fire to standing trees, saplings or shrubs under section 463(c) of the Criminal Code. The central issue was whether the defendant's actions were wilful and directly resulted in the unlawful setting on fire of the trees, saplings or shrubs. The court heard evidence from various witnesses, including the boy B, who provided a detailed account of the events leading to the fire. The boy B testified that the defendant, along with others, initiated the fire and used a lighter to ignite it. The court had to determine whether the defendant's actions were wilful and if he played a direct role in starting the fire.

The court considered the evidence provided by the boy B, along with other testimonies, to assess the defendant's involvement. It was established that the defendant was present when the fire was started and had actively participated in the process. The court found that the defendant's actions were wilful and directly contributed to the unlawful setting on fire of the trees, saplings or shrubs. Given the evidence and the defendant's involvement, the court concluded that the defendant's actions met the criteria for the charge under section 463(c) of the Criminal Code.

As a result of the court's decision, the defendant was found guilty of the charge. The final orders of the court were to record the defendant's conviction and to proceed with any further legal actions as required by law. The court's decision hinged on the clear and direct evidence of the defendant's wilful actions in starting the fire, leading to the conviction.

Orders

Orders of the court

The defendant is found guilty.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

A further matter to be noted in this instance, is that prior to the development in this trial, whereby the indicted allegations against the defendant J were the subject of nolle prosequi, the recorded interview conducted with him on 10 September 2019 was tendered and played to the Court. That evidence was only admissible in respect of that defendant and is to be noted as inadmissible against the defendant A. Accordingly, no regard will be had to it and the contents of that interview are to be ignored in respect of the questions to be determined in respect of the defendant A. The evidence Although the particularly relevant evidence in this trial comes from relatively few sources, it is both convenient and necessary to note some of it in some detail, particularly having regard to the nuance involved in it. For the prosecution, some particular reliance is placed on the evidence of the boy B, as being the most consistent and complete account of the relevant events.[9] At the outset of his interview on 10 September 2019, he provided the following overview:“Okay so I was with [J] at school when it finished and we decided to go um, to watch a Oz tag game and he wanted to stop at his house first and get changed so I, we went to his house and I waited outside and then we went to a spot in the bush which is where the fire happened um, we were smoking and um, so when we got there, we started smoking and eating and then two girls [I] and [A], [I], [I] and [A] messaged [J] and said we should come to, so they came down and while they were there [J] said it was getting a bit boring and they should light a fire and there was already logs there with a, with like, all he had to do was put some paper bark on it and he used a, his lighter, the yellow one to um, light the fire, threw a crate which has one, which had one side, side missing and while that was burning the crate lit on fire as well and [A] threw the crate into the bush which was around us in a circle, while the fire was in the middle of the circle um, so she had threw the burning crate into the f-, trees and I immediately said, what are you doing? That’s a horrible decision I live right next to here that’s going to start a bush fire and I went over and I stomped it out and it didn’t get too big so I put it out pretty, fairly easily and I moved the crate because it wasn’t fully burning yet too the dirt patch so that it wouldn’t light on anything else and then I went and sat down and I went back on my phone and I look up ‘cause I heard laughing and I saw the crate was back on the trees and this time it was fairly big already so I went over, tried to stomp it out and that wasn’t working to well so I went and grabbed my water bottle from my bag and tried to put it out but it wasn’t doing too, too well because it was fairly big and the wind was taking it so um, I was yelling at everyone and then it got really big so we had to leave and we got to the top of the hill where the street, where the bush was and the two girls [I] and [A] left and me and [J] went to Coles and then it got really big and I saw people calling triple 0 and then mum told me to come home and we got to Coles it was 4:22, that was the only time I checked the time.”[10][9]Prosecution written submissions, at [6.3].[10]MFI I, at p 4.5-41.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.