Legal Research
Cases
R v Walker

R v Walker

Case [2004] VSC 411 21 October 2004

Criminal Liability

Statutory Interpretation

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1479 of 2004

THE QUEEN

PAUL HAROLD WALKER

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6 and 7 September 2004
DATE OF RULING:	7 September 2004
DATE OF REASONS:	21 October 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Paul Harold Walker
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 411

---

Criminal Law – Ruling – Presentment containing separate counts of rape and taking part in an act of sexual penetration with a child under the age of 16 – Section 425 of the Crimes Act 1958 not to be interpreted as providing an exclusive code

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel

Solicitors

For the Crown

Mr W. Morgan-Payler Q.C. with Mr J. Kelly

Office of Public Prosecutions

For the Accused

Mr P. Tehan Q.C.

with Mr P. Chadwick

C D Traill Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Section 425 of the Crimes Act 1958 deals with: “Alternative verdicts for certain charges of sexual offences”. If s.425 had to be interpreted as providing a form of exclusive code, then the only alternatives that could be included on a presentment would be those stated in the section. A presentment which contained two counts that are not specifically provided for would have to be severed. I am satisfied that s.425 should not be interpreted as if it was a code. Rather, it should be interpreted as providing a framework that ought to be applied, using the words of Tadgell JA in R v McLean (2000) VR 118 as to another provision in the same Act, to which I will later refer: “sensibly and serviceably and with practical adaptability.”

I now set out the relevant parts of s.425, with an extract from each of s.421 of the Crimes Act and s.51 of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984:

421. Alternative verdicts …
(2)Where, on a person’s trial on …presentment…the jury find him not guilty of the offence specifically charged…, but the allegations in the …presentment amount to or include (expressly or by necessary implication) an allegation of another offence falling within the jurisdiction of the court of trial, the jury may find him guilty of that offence.

425.     Alternative verdicts for certain charges of sexual offences
(1)If on the trial of a person charged with rape the jury are not satisfied that he or she is guilty of rape …but are satisfied that he or she is guilty of—
…
           (b)      an offence against section 39 (indecent assault); or
   …
(e)an offence against section 47(1) (indecent act with child under the age of 16);

the jury may acquit the accused of rape and find him or her guilty of whichever of those offences they are satisfied he or she is guilty
(3)If on the trial of a person charged with an offence against section 45(1) the jury are not satisfied that he or she is guilty of the offence charged …but are satisfied that he or she is guilty of—
…
(b) an offence…

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 Walker

Details

AGLC: R v Walker [2004] VSC 411
Case: [2004] VSC 411
Decision Date: 21 October 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Walker involved the accused, Walker, who was charged with multiple counts of rape and taking part in an act of sexual penetration with a child under the age of 16. The matter was heard and determined in the County Court of Victoria. The prosecution presented a presentment containing separate counts of these offences, which raised the issue of whether section 425 of the Crimes Act 1958 should be interpreted to provide an exclusive code, thereby limiting the charges to one count.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether section 425 of the Crimes Act 1958 could be interpreted to restrict the prosecution from charging multiple counts of related offences. The court considered whether the section was intended to be a comprehensive or exclusive code that precluded the presentation of multiple charges for acts that constituted a single course of conduct. The accused argued that the prosecution should be limited to one count to avoid duplicity, while the prosecution contended that the statutory provision did not prevent the presentation of separate counts for each offence.

In resolving the issue, the court found that section 425 of the Crimes Act 1958 was not to be interpreted as providing an exclusive code that would prevent the prosecution from presenting multiple counts for related offences. The court emphasised that the purpose of the legislation was to ensure that the accused is clearly informed of the charges against them, and that the prosecution is not limited to a single count when multiple offences are committed during a single course of conduct. The court held that the prosecution could present separate counts for each offence, provided that each count was clearly and distinctly alleged.

The court's decision resulted in the dismissal of Walker's application to quash the presentment. The case proceeded to trial on the charges as originally presented. The court did not provide further orders beyond the resolution of the legal issue concerning the interpretation of section 425 of the Crimes Act 1958.

Orders