R v The Queen

[2005] QDC 296

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:	R v R [2005] QDC 296
PARTIES:	R v R
FILE NO/S:	Indictment 600/05
PROCEEDING	Application under s 590AA of the Criminal Code for separate trials
DELIVERED ON:	14 October 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 October 2005
JUDGE:	Judge Brabazon QC
ORDER:	Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – SIMILAR FACTS – ADMISSIBILITY – GENERALLY – accused charged with sexual 12 offences against three complainants – application seeking a direction that there be three separate trials – whether the respective counts involving the three complainants are properly joined – whether similar fact evidence is cross-admissible.
C v R [1994] 2 NZLR 621 Director of Public Prosecutions v P [1991] 2 AC 447 Hoch v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 292 Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461 R v O’Keefe [2001] 1 Qd R 564 R v Accused [1992] 2 NZLR 187 R v Accused [1988] 1 NZLR 573 R v BAR [2005] QCA 080 R v Mitchell [2000] VSCA 54 R v Noyes [2005] 1 QDR 169 R v O [1999] 1 NZLR 347 R v PS [2004] QCA 347 R v Riley [1997] QCA 277 R v S [2001] QCA 501 R v Wackerow [1998] 1 QDR 197
COUNSEL:	Mr J Godbolt for the Director of Public Prosecutions Mr T Ryan for the accused
SOLICITORS:	The Director of Public Prosecutions
Legal Aid Queensland for the accused

The Issue

1. The indictment charges Mr Rees with 14 counts of sexual misconduct against three girls. The prosecution is not proceeding further with respect to counts 3 and 4. The remaining 12 counts allege indecent treatment, the maintenance of a sexual relationship with a child, and indecent assault.

2. The counts are joined in the one indictment. The prosecution says that there should be one trial of all 12 offences. It is submitted for Mr Rees that there should be three trials, each dealing with the allegations of a separate complainant.

3. This is an application under s 590AA of the Criminal Code, for a direction or ruling about the joinder of the charges.

4. The hearing was based on written outlines of argument provided by the prosecutor and defence counsel. They were supplemented by some oral submissions. The prosecutor’s outline included a schedule of the evidence to be led with respect to each charge. There was no objection to that course. There was no question of hearing any evidence on a voir dire. There was no suggestion that a reading of the depositions was necessary – there was no reference to them.

5. Such rulings are significant. They are binding unless the judge at the trial, for special reason, gives leave to reopen a direction or ruling. It must not be subject to interlocutory appeal, but may be raised as a ground of appeal against conviction or sentence.

The Allegations

1. The allegations begin when the accused was aged 13 or 14. His family had a house near Brisbane. The house had a swimming pool. He had…