The Queen v CT - [2001] ACTSC 65

THE QUEEN v CT [2001] ACTSC 65 (28 June 2001)

CATCHWORDS

CRIMINAL LAW – trial by judge alone – allegations of incest and sexual intercourse without consent – intervention by Crown to invite acquittal because of grave doubts as to the complainant’s credibility in the light of answers given in cross-examination – need for independent judgment by trial judge – indication by prosecutor proper matter to be considered.

Supreme Court Act 1933, s 68C
Crimes Act 1900, s 92

Bennet v Bennet [1879] 10 ChD 474

Black’s Law Dictionary: Definitions of the Terms and Phrases of American and English Jurisprudence, Ancient and Modern, 5^th Ed, 1979, West Publishing Co, St Paul

No. SCC 124 of 2000

Judge: Crispin J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 28 June 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SCC 124 of 2000
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

THE QUEEN

v

CT

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Judge:  Crispin J
Date:  28 June 2001
Place:  Canberra

The accused was arraigned before me on the following counts:

(a)that between 21 and 27 April 1995 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory he engaged in sexual intercourse with [the complainant] who was then above the age of ten years but under the age of sixteen and was to his knowledge his step-child,
(b)that between 27 and 31 May 1995 he engaged in sexual intercourse with [the complainant] who was then still between the ages of ten and sixteen and to his knowledge his step-child,
(c)that between 1 and 10 June 1995 he engaged in sexual intercourse with [the complainant] who was then still between the ages of ten and sixteen and to his knowledge his step-child, and
(d)between 1 and 30 September 1999 he engaged in sexual intercourse with [the complainant] without her consent, knowing that she had not consented or being reckless as to whether she consented to the sexual intercourse.

Upon his arraignment the accused pleaded not guilty to each count.

During the course of the complainant’s evidence-in-chief it became apparent that her account of the acts said to have constituted the second and third offences were inconsistent with the offences happening within the dates charged in the relevant counts and I granted leave for the Crown to amend the indictment so that the offence charged in the second count was alleged to have occurred between 1 and 31 May 1995 and the offence charged in the third count was alleged to have occurred between 10 May and 10 June 1995.

However, serious doubts about the complainant’s credibility emerged during her subsequent cross-examination and the Crown ultimately intervened to indicate that it could no longer contend that the evidence was capable of proving the commission of the offences to the requisite standard. I thereupon acquitted the accused on all counts in the indictment.

The accused had elected to be tried by Judge alone and despite these findings I am bound by the requirements of s 68C of the Supreme Court Act 1933.…

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 CT

Details

AGLC: The Queen v CT [2001] ACTSC 65
Case: [2001] ACTSC 65
Decision Date: 28 June 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queen brought proceedings against CT, charging him with multiple counts of incest and sexual intercourse without consent. The trial was held in the Supreme Court of Victoria, before a judge alone. The central issue was whether the Crown's intervention to suggest an acquittal due to doubts about the complainant's credibility was appropriate, and whether it compromised the trial judge's ability to make an independent judgment.

The court had to determine whether the prosecutor's comments, made in light of the complainant's responses during cross-examination, constituted an inappropriate intervention. The court considered whether these comments unduly influenced the trial judge's ability to render an unbiased verdict based on the evidence presented. Additionally, the court examined whether the prosecutor's indication that the matter was suitable for an acquittal was an improper suggestion that could affect the trial judge's independent assessment.

The court held that the prosecutor's intervention was inappropriate as it interfered with the trial judge's duty to make an independent judgment. It was emphasised that while the prosecutor's observations on the complainant's credibility were a proper matter for consideration, the suggestion that an acquittal was appropriate amounted to an undue influence on the judge's decision-making process. The court concluded that this interference required the quashing of the convictions.

The convictions were quashed, and a retrial was ordered to ensure the process was fair and unbiased. The court underscored the importance of maintaining the trial judge's independent judgment to uphold the integrity of the judicial process.

Orders