The Queen v Brown - [2010] NTSC 17

The Queen v Brown [2010] NTSC 17

PARTIES: THE QUEEN
v
MATTHEW BROWN
TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE
NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION:

SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO: 20903843
DELIVERED: 29 April 2010
HEARING DATES: 27, 28 April 2010
RULING OF: OLSSON AJ
RULING ON VOIR DIRE:
CATCHWORDS:
EVIDENCE LAW – VOIR DIRE – ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
Whether content of child forensic interviews admissible - prolonged
interrogation by police of five-year-old female complainant amounting
to virtual cross examination - pattern of questioning suggestive of
misconduct by accused - whether responses of complainant
contaminated - whether responses patently unreliable in circumstances -
whether responses elicited by inappropriate inducements - whether, in
any event, good reason not to admit responses pursuant to s21B(3) of
Evidence Act - evidence of responses excluded.

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:

Prosecution: R Noble
Accused: P Elliott
Solicitors:

Prosecution: Office of the Director of Public
Prosecutions
Accused: Northern Territory Legal Aid
Commission
Judgment category classification: B

Judgment ID Number: Ols0105
Number of pages: 21
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ALICE SPRINGS
The Queen v Brown [2010] NTSC 17

No. 20903843

BETWEEN:
THE QUEEN
AND:
MATTHEW BROWN

CORAM: OLSSON AJ
REASONS FOR RULING (Delivered 29 April 2010)

Introduction

[1]

In these proceedings the accused has pleaded not guilty to a charge of
aggravated indecent dealing with a child under the age of 16 years.
Specifically, the Crown asserts that, between 16 October 2008 and
29 December 2008 at Alice Springs, he indecently dealt with a young female
child aged five years, by touching her vaginal area through her underpants.
I will refer to that child as "the complainant".

At the time of the alleged incident the complainant was in care at a Child Care Centre in Alice Springs. The accused, a mature age man, was a member of the staff of that Centre. The Crown case is that the indecent dealing took place in the kitchen of the Centre, in which, as portion of his duties, the accused frequently worked or in the so-called "over’s" room of the Centre.
There are two specific factual aspects that should be borne in mind as portion of the relevant factual background matrix.

[4]

The first is that it emerged from the committal evidence[1] that the
complainant had earlier been involved in an incident somewhat similar to
that alleged against the accused. It appears that she had been improperly
touched on the vagina by some person (other than the accused) when she
was about three years of age. The possible impact of that event on the
complainant's thinking and reactions, in light of the factual history that I am
about to recite, cannot be overlooked.

The complainant's mother conceded that, since that incident, she had discussed the relevant circumstances of that incident with the complainant and, from time to time, reiterated statements to her that persons should not touch the complainant in that manner and that she should speak out if such a…

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 The Queen v Brown

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Brown [2010] NTSC 17
Case: [2010] NTSC 17
Decision Date: 29 April 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queen versus Brown was a case heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Brown, was charged with sexually assaulting a child. The primary dispute in the case centred on the admissibility of the forensic interviews conducted with the child complainant, which were intended to be used as evidence against Brown. The interviews were recorded on DVDs, and the prosecution sought to use these recordings as part of their case.

The legal issues that the court was required to address included whether the forensic interviews were conducted in a manner that adhered to legal standards and whether the content of the interviews was admissible as evidence. The court had to consider whether the procedures followed during the interviews were appropriate and whether the interviews were conducted in a way that ensured the reliability and fairness of the evidence. Furthermore, the court needed to determine if the content of the interviews was relevant and reliable for the purposes of establishing the alleged offence.

The court found that the forensic interviews were conducted in an unsatisfactory manner, with significant procedural issues that undermined their reliability and admissibility. The court highlighted the lack of proper safeguards, the potential for suggestive questioning, and the absence of contemporaneous documentation as critical factors that rendered the interviews problematic. Consequently, the court held that it would be grossly unfair and unjust to admit the interviews as evidence. The unsatisfactory nature of the interviews meant that they could not be relied upon to establish the guilt of the accused. The court further concluded that the content of the interviews, to the extent that it pertained to the alleged conduct of the accused, should be excluded from the evidence.

The final orders of the court were that the DVDs of the forensic interviews, and any content derived from them that related to the alleged conduct of the accused, were inadmissible in the proceedings against Brown. This decision underscored the importance of ensuring that forensic interviews are conducted in a manner that upholds the principles of fairness and reliability, and that evidence obtained through improper methods is excluded from the trial.

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

I am driven to the conclusion that such are the unsatisfactory features of the conduct and content of the child forensic interviews as to the matters relied upon to establish the guilt of the accused that it would be grossly unfair and unjust to permit them to be adduced in evidence. I therefore hold that there is, in any event, good reason not to admit them. Conclusion It follows that, quite apart from the technical problems associated with the DVDs, their content must be excluded, in so far as it bears on the alleged conduct of the accused towards the complainant which is said to found the offence charged against him.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

PARTIES:	THE QUEEN
v
MATTHEW BROWN
TITLE OF COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:	SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:	20903843
DELIVERED:	29 April 2010
HEARING DATES:	27, 28 April 2010
RULING OF:	OLSSON AJ
RULING ON VOIR DIRE:
CATCHWORDS:

Prosecution:	Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Accused:	Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission

Judgment ID Number:	Ols0105
Number of pages:	21
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA AT ALICE SPRINGS