JUDGE BISHOP
NO.835/2002
R v PETER TREW
FRIDAY, 13 DECEMBER 2002
MS S. DAVID FOR PROSECUTION
MS N. WILLIAMS FOR ACCUSED
HIS HONOUR RETURNS TO BENCH 11.05 A.M.
HIS HONOUR IN DELIVERING THE VERDICT SAID:
For reasons which I publish, I find the accused not guilty of the alleged offence or of the available alternative offence indecent assault. You are discharged and free to go Mr Trew. I publish my reasons.
VERDICT NOT GUILTY OF ANY OFFENCE
ACCUSED DISCHARGED
Details
- AGLC
- R v Trew No. DCCRM-02-835 [2002] SADC 161
- Case
- [2002] SADC 161
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the District Court of the Australian Capital Territory, the case of R v Trew involved an individual named Peter Trew, who faced allegations of an offence. The nature of the dispute centred around whether Trew was guilty of the alleged crime or, alternatively, of an indecent assault. The prosecution was represented by Ms. S. David, while Ms. N. Williams acted for the accused. The decision was delivered by Judge Bishop on Friday, 13 December 2002.
The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether Trew was guilty of the alleged offence and, if not, whether he was guilty of the alternative offence of indecent assault. These determinations required a careful examination of the evidence presented and the applicable legal standards. The court needed to assess the credibility and sufficiency of the evidence, as well as the legal definitions and requirements for the charges in question.
The court, after considering the evidence and the law, found Trew not guilty of either the alleged offence or the alternative charge of indecent assault. The reasons for this verdict were communicated by the judge, though the specific details of those reasons were not elaborated upon in the summary. Consequently, the accused was discharged and released from any further legal proceedings.
The final orders of the court were that Peter Trew be discharged and declared not guilty of any offence.
The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether Trew was guilty of the alleged offence and, if not, whether he was guilty of the alternative offence of indecent assault. These determinations required a careful examination of the evidence presented and the applicable legal standards. The court needed to assess the credibility and sufficiency of the evidence, as well as the legal definitions and requirements for the charges in question.
The court, after considering the evidence and the law, found Trew not guilty of either the alleged offence or the alternative charge of indecent assault. The reasons for this verdict were communicated by the judge, though the specific details of those reasons were not elaborated upon in the summary. Consequently, the accused was discharged and released from any further legal proceedings.
The final orders of the court were that Peter Trew be discharged and declared not guilty of any offence.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.