R v Taylor - [2010] ACTSC 121

R v LIAM TAYLOR
[2010] ACTSC 121 (6 October 2010)

CRIMINAL LAW – trial by judge alone – five counts of act of indecency upon a person aged under ten years – one count of engaging in sexual intercourse with a person aged under ten years – three complainants – no inference to be drawn by way of tendency or coincidence reasoning – what constitutes an act of indecency
EVIDENCE – evidence of unhealthy sexual interest in complainants – reference to innocent purpose for accused acting as alleged in count two – evidence of accused not persuasive or truthful but made no admissions nor betrayed a consciousness of guilt

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 68C
Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT), Div 4.2
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 50

R v Morton [1998] SCACT 8 (24 February 1998)
R v Court [1989] 1 AC 28, 35
Phillips v Police (1994) 75 A Crim R 480

No. SCC 410 of 2008

Judge: Higgins CJ
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 6 October 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 410 of 2009
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

R

v

LIAM TAYLOR

ORDER

Judge:  Higgins CJ
Date:  6 October 2010
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Verdict of not guilty be entered in respect of counts 1, 2 and 3.

Verdict of guilty be entered in respect of count 6

On 24 July 2009, an indictment was presented against the accused alleging various sexual offences were committed by the accused as follows (names of complainants omitted):

COUNT ONE

... THAT between the 1^st day of August 2005 and the 25^th day of December 2005 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory Liam Taylor committed an act of indecency upon a person aged under 10 years, namely [complainant 1].

SECOND COUNT

... THAT between the 1^st day of August 2005 and the 25^th day of December 2005 at Canberra aforesaid Liam Taylor committed an act of indecency upon a person aged under 10 years, namely [complainant 1].

THIRD COUNT

... THAT between the 19^th day of March 2007 and the 5^th day of April 2007 at Canberra aforesaid Liam Taylor committed an act of indecency upon a person aged under 10 years, namely [complainant 2].

FOURTH COUNT

... THAT between the 25^th day of July 2007 and the 30^th of September 2007 at Canberra foresaid Liam Taylor committed an act of indecency upon a person aged under 10 years, namely [X].

FIFTH COUNT

... THAT between the 23^rd day of November 2007 and the 30^th day of March 2008 at Canberra aforesaid Liam Taylor engaged in sexual intercourse with a person aged under 10 years, namely [complainant 3].

SIXTH COUNT

AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE THAT between the 23^rd day of November 2007 and the 30^th day of March 2008 at Canberra aforesaid Liam Taylor committed an act of indecency upon a person aged under 10 years,…

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 Taylor

Details

AGLC: R v Taylor [2010] ACTSC 121
Case: [2010] ACTSC 121
Decision Date: 6 October 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Taylor, the defendant was tried on six counts of various sexual offences against three complainants, all of whom were under ten years of age at the time of the alleged offences. The trial was conducted before a judge alone without a jury. The defendant was found not guilty on counts 1, 2, and 3, which related to acts of indecency, but was found guilty on count 6, which related to engaging in sexual intercourse with a person under ten years of age.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had committed the acts of indecency and sexual intercourse as alleged. The court had to consider whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt. The court also had to determine what constituted an act of indecency in the context of the case.

The court found that there was no evidence of a tendency or coincidence that could support an inference that the defendant was guilty of the offences. The court noted that while the evidence suggested that the defendant had an unhealthy sexual interest in the complainants, there was no evidence of the accused acting with an innocent purpose as alleged in count two. The court also found that the accused's evidence was not persuasive or truthful and that he made no admissions nor betrayed a consciousness of guilt. Based on these findings, the court entered verdicts of not guilty on counts 1, 2, and 3, and a verdict of guilty on count 6. The court ordered that verdicts of not guilty be entered in respect of counts 1, 2, and 3 and that a verdict of guilty be entered in respect of count 6.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Verdict of not guilty be entered in respect of counts 1, 2 and 3.

2. Verdict of guilty be entered in respect of count 6

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.

COUNT ONE	... THAT between the 1^st day of August 2005 and the 25^th day of December 2005 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory Liam Taylor committed an act of indecency upon a person aged under 10 years, namely [complainant 1].
SECOND COUNT	... THAT between the 1^st day of August 2005 and the 25^th day of December 2005 at Canberra aforesaid Liam Taylor committed an act of indecency upon a person aged under 10 years, namely [complainant 1].
THIRD COUNT	... THAT between the 19^th day of March 2007 and the 5^th day of April 2007 at Canberra aforesaid Liam Taylor committed an act of indecency upon a person aged under 10 years, namely [complainant 2].
FOURTH COUNT	... THAT between the 25^th day of July 2007 and the 30^th of September 2007 at Canberra foresaid Liam Taylor committed an act of indecency upon a person aged under 10 years, namely [X].
FIFTH COUNT	... THAT between the 23^rd day of November 2007 and the 30^th day of March 2008 at Canberra aforesaid Liam Taylor engaged in sexual intercourse with a person aged under 10 years, namely [complainant 3].
SIXTH COUNT	AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE THAT between the 23^rd day of November 2007 and the 30^th day of March 2008 at Canberra aforesaid Liam Taylor committed an act of indecency upon a person aged under 10 years,…