R v WC - [2016] QDC 241

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v WC [2016] QDC 241

PARTIES:

The Queen

V

WC

FILE NO/S:

No. 2284/2016

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Application for No Jury Order

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maryborough

DELIVERED ON:

8 September 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Maryborough

HEARING DATE:

1 September 2016

JUDGE:

Smith DCJA

ORDER:

Application dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW- PROCEDURE- Application for No Jury Order- charges of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship, indecent treatment and rape- whether alleged prejudice to the defendant can be overcome by directions

Criminal Code 1899 (Q), Sections 614, 615

Crofts v R (1996) 186 CLR 427
Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414
Quach v R (2011) 35 VR 71
R v AS [2016] QDC 80
R v Belghar (2012) 217 A Crim R 1; [2012] NSWCCA 86
R v Clough [2009] 1 Qd R 197
R v Fardon [2010] QCA 317
R v Ferguson [2009] QDC 158
R v Kissier [2012] 1 Qd R 353
R v MCH [2016] QCA 61
R v Rose [2010] 1 Qd R 87; [2009] QCA 83
Roughan and Jones v R [2007] QCA 443
Winning v R [2002] WASCA 44

COUNSEL:

Mr G. Webber for the Crown
Mr A. Hoare for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Prosecutions Queensland for the Crown
Suthers Lawyers for the defendant

Introduction

This is an application by the defence pursuant to s 614 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Q) for a no jury order.

Charges

The defendant is charged with the following counts:

Count 1. Between 14 February 2000 and 15 February 2004 at Maryborough and elsewhere he being an adult maintained an unlawful relationship of a sexual nature with JR, a child under 16 years and during the course of the relationship WC unlawfully and indecently dealt with JR, a child under 16 years and she was under 12 years.

Count 2. On a date unknown between 14 February 2000 and 15 February 2002 at Maryborough WC unlawfully and indecently dealt with JR, a child under 16 years and JR was under 12 years and WC had JR under his care.

Count 3. On a date unknown between 14 February 2000 and 15 February 2002 at Maryborough WC wilfully and unlawfully exposed JR, a child under 16 years to an indecent act by WC and JR was under 12 years and WC had JR under his care.

Count 4. On a date unknown between 14 February 2000 and 15 February 2002 at Maryborough WC unlawfully and indecently dealt with JR, a child under 16 years and JR was under 12 years and WC had JR under his care.

Count 5. On a date unknown between 14 February 2000 and 15 February 2002 at Maryborough WC unlawfully procured JR, a child under 16 years to commit an indecent act and JR was under 12 years and WC had JR under his care.

Count 6. On a date unknown between 14 February 2002 and 15 February 2003 at Tinana WC unlawfully procured…

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 WC

Details

AGLC: R v WC [2016] QDC 241
Case: [2016] QDC 241
Decision Date: 8 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v WC, the defendant was charged with maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship, indecent treatment, and rape. The case was heard in the District Court of Queensland. The defendant applied for a no jury order, which would have allowed the case to be heard by a single judge rather than a jury, on the basis that the publicity surrounding the case would prejudice the defendant’s right to a fair trial. The prosecution opposed the application.

The legal issue for the court to determine was whether the alleged prejudice to the defendant could be overcome by appropriate directions to any jury empanelled to hear the case. The court considered the principles established in Crofts v R and subsequent cases, which provide that a no jury order may be granted where there is a real risk that the defendant cannot receive a fair trial due to prejudicial publicity. However, the court must also consider whether appropriate directions can mitigate any potential prejudice.

The court found that while the publicity surrounding the case was extensive and potentially prejudicial, appropriate directions could be given to the jury to mitigate any prejudice. The court noted that the publicity was not of a nature that would make it impossible for the defendant to receive a fair trial, and that the directions could be tailored to the specific circumstances of the case. The application for a no jury order was dismissed.

No orders were made.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed.

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.

CITATION:	R v WC [2016] QDC 241
PARTIES:	The Queen V WC
FILE NO/S:	No. 2284/2016
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Application for No Jury Order
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Maryborough
DELIVERED ON:	8 September 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Maryborough
HEARING DATE:	1 September 2016
JUDGE:	Smith DCJA
ORDER:	Application dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW- PROCEDURE- Application for No Jury Order- charges of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship, indecent treatment and rape- whether alleged prejudice to the defendant can be overcome by directions Criminal Code 1899 (Q), Sections 614, 615 Crofts v R (1996) 186 CLR 427 Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414 Quach v R (2011) 35 VR 71 R v AS [2016] QDC 80 R v Belghar (2012) 217 A Crim R 1; [2012] NSWCCA 86 R v Clough [2009] 1 Qd R 197 R v Fardon [2010] QCA 317 R v Ferguson [2009] QDC 158 R v Kissier [2012] 1 Qd R 353 R v MCH [2016] QCA 61 R v Rose [2010] 1 Qd R 87; [2009] QCA 83 Roughan and Jones v R [2007] QCA 443 Winning v R [2002] WASCA 44
COUNSEL:	Mr G. Webber for the Crown Mr A. Hoare for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Office of the Director of Prosecutions Queensland for the Crown Suthers Lawyers for the defendant