CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v TF [2018] QChC 26
PARTIES:
R
v
TF
(defendant)FILE NO/S:
01/18
DIVISION:
Criminal
PROCEEDING:
Trial – Judge Alone
ORIGINATING COURT:
Childrens Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:
29 October 2018
DELIVERED AT:
Cairns
HEARING DATE:
24 to 27 September 2018 inclusive (Mount Isa)
JUDGE:
Fantin DCJ
ORDER:
Guilty
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – trial by judge sitting alone without jury – where defendant child charged with one count of indecent dealing of a child under 16, under 12 – where defendant was a 13 year old girl and complainant was an eight year old girl – whether prosecution has rebutted presumption of incapacity doli incapax – whether prosecution has proved elements of offence beyond reasonable doubt.
Legislation
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), ss 29, 210
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) ss 21AK, 21AW, 93A, 102
Youth Justice Act 1992, ss 98, 102, 103Cases
C (A Minor) v DPP [1995] 2 Cr App R 166
R (A Child) v Whitty (1993) 66 A Crim R 462
R v B (An Infant) [1979] Qd R 417
R v F; Ex parte Attorney-General [1999] 2 Qd R 157
COUNSEL: A Payne for the Crown
A Loode for the defendantSOLICITORS: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown
Legal Aid Queensland for the defendant.
Background
The defendant was charged with two counts of indecent dealing with a child under 16, under 12 under s 210(1)(a)(3) Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) between 1 December 2016 and 1 February 2017.
On the first day of trial the Crown entered a nolle prosequi with respect to count 2 on the indictment. The defendant was arraigned on count 1 and entered a plea of not guilty.
Both the defendant and the complainant are female children. They are step cousins[1].
[1] The complainant’s father and the defendant’s step father are brothers.
The defendant was born on 14 January 2003 and the complainant was born on 21 April 2008[2]. During most of the period alleged, the defendant was 13 years old. She turned 14 on 14 January 2017. The complainant was eight years old.
[2] This was the subject of admissions.
The Crown case is that during a sleepover at the complainant’s house during the Christmas school holidays, the defendant touched the complainant on the outside of her underwear on the vagina.
Because the conduct is at the less serious end of the range for this offence, had the defendant admitted the act, it is likely that the police may have considered a less formal resolution appropriate, and elected to caution the child or refer her to a restorative justice process.
That did not occur. The defendant denied the allegations. The Crown exercised its discretion to prosecute.
The defendant child elected under section 98(2)(a) Youth Justice Act 1992 to be committed for trial before…
Continue reading R v TF
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v TF [2018] QChC 26
- Case
- [2018] QChC 26
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the presumption of incapacity doli incapax had been rebutted as the prosecution had proved that the defendant had the capacity to understand the nature and quality of her actions. The court also found that the prosecution had proved the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The court found the defendant guilty of the offence of indecently dealing with a child under 16, under 12.
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was credible and that the defendant had engaged in sexual activity with the complainant. The court found that the defendant had the capacity to understand the nature and quality of her actions and that the prosecution had proved the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The court found the defendant guilty of the offence of indecently dealing with a child under 16, under 12. The court made an order for the defendant to be placed under supervision and to attend counselling sessions.
Orders
Orders of the court
Guilty
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.