Ridonfi v Heenan - [2008] NTMC 34

CITATION: Ridolfi v Heenan [2008] NTMC 034

PARTIES: MATTHEW RIDOLFI

MICHAEL TIMOTHY HEENAN

TITLE OF COURT: Court of Summary Jurisdiction

JURISDICTION: Justices Act

FILE NO(s): 20709865

DELIVERED ON: 6 June 2008

DELIVERED AT: Darwin

HEARING DATE(s): 19 September 2007, 2 October 2007, 30 November 2007, 14 December 2007, 19 February 2008, 21 April 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Mr V M Luppino SM

CATCHWORDS:

Evidence - Whether the provisions of Part IIA Evidence Act apply to summary hearings.

Evidence - Admissibility of recorded statement of child victim of a sexual offence - Whether leading questions are permitted - Whether there is “good reason” not to admit statement.

Evidence - Admissibility of record of interview – Whether record of interview contains admissions – Relevance of admissions to uncharged acts.

Evidence – Identification evidence – Warning to be given in relation to identification evidence – Matters making reliability of identification evidence suspect.

R v M (2006) NTCCA 21; R v Warren (1994) 72 A Crim R 74; R v FAR [1996] 2 Qd R 49; Re Aaron Shane Morris [1996] 78 A Crim R 465; R v Eldridge [2005] NTSC 59; Drago v R (1992) 8 WAR 488.

Criminal Code (NT) s 132
Evidence Act (NT) ss 21A, 21B, 21D
Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act (NT) s3
Evidence Act (Qld) ss 93A, 98, 130.

Questioning of Child Witnesses, Thomas D Lyon & Martha Matthews, CLCLA, 2006

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Informant: Ms McMaster
Defendant: Mr Noud

Solicitors:
Informant: DPP
Defendant: NAAJA

Judgment category classification: B
Judgment ID number: [2008] NTMC 034
Number of paragraphs: 70

IN THE COURT OF SUMMARY JURISDICTION
AT DARWIN IN THE NORTHERN
TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA

No. 20709865
BETWEEN:

MATTHEW RIDOLFI
Informant

AND:

MICHAEL TIMOTHY HEENAN
Defendant

REASONS FOR DECISION

(Delivered 6 June 2008)

Mr V M LUPPINO SM:
1. The defendant was charged on information that between the 1st and 2nd April 2007 at Nguiu he indecently dealt with GO, a child under the age of 16 years contrary to s 132(2) of the Criminal Code. The parties consented to summary jurisdiction.
2. The hearing commenced in Nguiu on 19th September 2007. Deficiencies with technical equipment which could not accommodate the statutory requirements for vulnerable witness meant that only preliminary legal argument occurred on that occasion.
3. The legal argument concerned a defence submission that section 21B(2)(a) of the Evidence Act (“the Act”) did not apply to summary hearings. After hearing argument, following the decision of the Northern Territory Court of Criminal Appeal in R v M (2006) NTCCA 21, I ruled that the term “proceedings” as described in section 21B(1) included a summary hearing.
4. The hearing then adjourned to Darwin on 30 November 2007 when the evidence commenced.
5. At the outset, the prosecution indicated that a recorded statement of the child victim was sought to be relied on pursuant to section 21B of the Act. Mr Noud for the defendant challenged the admissibility of that recorded statement as well as the record of interview conducted…

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 Ridonfi v Heenan

Details

AGLC: Ridonfi v Heenan [2008] NTMC 34
Case: [2008] NTMC 34
Decision Date: 6 June 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ridolfi v Heenan involves a charge against Michael Timothy Heenan for indecently dealing with a child under the age of 16, GO. The case was heard in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction in Darwin. The central legal issues revolved around the admissibility of a recorded statement from the child victim under the provisions of the Evidence Act, the nature and effect of leading questions in the recorded statement, and the admissibility of a record of interview with the defendant. The court also needed to consider whether the prosecution had proven the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

The court ruled that the recorded statement was admissible, despite the use of leading questions, based on the legislative intent to accommodate young children giving evidence and reduce their trauma. The court found that the leading questions were more akin to prompting or reminding the child of previously stated facts and did not introduce new allegations. The record of interview was also deemed admissible as it contained inculpatory admissions by the defendant.

On the merits, the court found the defendant not guilty due to concerns over the reliability of the child victim's evidence, particularly the identification of the defendant as the assailant. The court highlighted issues with the child's opportunity to view the assailant, the state of the lighting, and the suspect reliability of the identification evidence overall.

Orders