The Queen v Doyle - [2021] NTSC 49

CITATION:The Queen v Doyle [2021] NTSC 49
PARTIES:THE QUEEN

v
DOYLE, Jason Anthony

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:21925942
DELIVERED:  28 June 2021
HEARING DATE:  20 May 2021
JUDGMENT OF:  Kelly J

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Crown:T McNamee
Accused:J Nottle with T Gray
Solicitors:
Crown:Director of Public Prosecutions
Accused:Grays Legal NT
Judgment category classification:    C
Judgment ID Number:  Kel2110
Number of pages:  13

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
The Queen v Doyle [2021] NTSC 49

No. 21925942

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

AND:

JASON ANTHONY DOYLE

CORAM: KELLY J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 28 June 2021)

The accused is charged with indecent dealing with PTC, an 8 year old girl. The accused pleaded not guilty and was tried before a jury in November 2020. The jury was unable to reach a verdict and was discharged on 6 November 2020. The matter has been relisted for trial starting on 11 June 2021.
The Crown case
The Crown case against the accused is that, when the complainant and her brother were at his house for a playdate with the accused’s children, he asked the complainant to help him clean the fish tank in the kitchen and when that task was completed, he said to her, “Don’t tell anyone what I’m about to do.” Then he stood behind her, put his arms over her shoulders from behind, moved her shorts and underwear aside and touched her on the outside of her vagina.
In addition to the evidence which has already been led from the complainant, and pre-recorded, the Crown intends to adduce evidence from the complainant’s mother, from the acting school principal of the school attended by the complainant, Rachel Webb and from Andrea Palmer.
The defence has objected to the evidence sought to be led from the acting principal, Rachel Webb, and from Andrea Palmer. (No objection has been made to the evidence of the mother.)
Evidence of Rachel Webb
Rachel Webb made a statement to police in which she said that on the school Sports Day in May 2019 she was walking around with the year 3 and 4 girls which included the complainant and the accused’s daughter. The two girls were friends. The kids were getting ready to take part in their events. They were all lined up and waiting. The parents usually stand off to the sides and watch. However, the accused was sitting in line with the girls, that is, with his daughter and the complainant.
She noticed the two girls “climbing all over” the accused and said he was sitting next to the girls, playing with them and “constantly touching” them (ie the complainant and his daughter). She also mentioned them swinging off his arms while they were standing on the sidelines.
She called the girls over and asked them to line up and get ready for their events. Each time she did so, the accused would follow “very confidently”. Usually other…

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 Doyle

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Doyle [2021] NTSC 49
Case: [2021] NTSC 49
Decision Date: 28 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The Queen v Doyle was heard in an Australian court, where the accused stands charged with a serious offence. The primary dispute in this case revolves around the admissibility of certain evidence intended to be presented by the Crown. The key individuals involved in the case are the accused, the complainant, and two witnesses: Rachel Webb, the acting principal, and Andrea Palmer. The Crown intends to lead evidence from Ms Webb, who witnessed interactions between the accused and the complainant on school grounds, as well as evidence from the complainant's mother.

The legal issues at the heart of this case centre on the relevance and admissibility of the proposed evidence from Rachel Webb. The Crown argues that Ms Webb's observations of the accused's interactions with the complainant and other children provide valuable context for the alleged offence, demonstrating a pattern of inappropriate behaviour and a gradual escalation of physical contact. The defence, however, objects to this evidence, likely on grounds of its relevance and potential prejudicial impact on the accused.

The court carefully considered the Crown's argument that the evidence of Ms Webb is relevant to understanding the context of the alleged offence. The court found that the evidence of previous physical contact between the accused and the complainant could indeed demonstrate a progression in their relationship and the accused's familiarity with the complainant. The court acknowledged that this evidence could be pertinent in understanding the accused's actions and the complainant's comfort level with the accused. Consequently, the court ruled that the evidence from Rachel Webb should be admitted as it was relevant and could assist in providing context to the alleged offence.

In conclusion, the court allowed the evidence from Rachel Webb to be presented in the case, finding it relevant to the context of the alleged offence. This decision ensures that the jury will have access to information that may help them understand the relationship between the accused and the complainant, and the progression of events leading up to the alleged offence. The admissibility of this evidence is a critical aspect of the trial, as it may influence the jury's assessment of the accused's actions and the complainant's state of mind.

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

The defence has objected to the evidence sought to be led from the acting principal, Rachel Webb, and from Andrea Palmer. (No objection has been made to the evidence of the mother.)Evidence of Rachel Webb Rachel Webb made a statement to police in which she said that on the school Sports Day in May 2019 she was walking around with the year 3 and 4 girls which included the complainant and the accused’s daughter. The two girls were friends. The kids were getting ready to take part in their events. They were all lined up and waiting. The parents usually stand off to the sides and watch. However, the accused was sitting in line with the girls, that is, with his daughter and the complainant. She noticed the two girls “climbing all over” the accused and said he was sitting next to the girls, playing with them and “constantly touching” them (ie the complainant and his daughter). She also mentioned them swinging off his arms while they were standing on the sidelines. She called the girls over and asked them to line up and get ready for their events. Each time she did so, the accused would follow “very confidently”. Usually other parents would encourage their children to go line up and they would remain on the side. In her statement Ms Webb also described things she witnessed on another day – the fun run day at school. The fun run started at 1.30 pm but the accused arrived at around 12.00 and was sitting amongst all the kids with the girls (ie the complainant and his daughter). Ms Webb told the accused that the fun run would start in an hour. He asked if he could just go and hang out with the kids and she told him he couldn’t. He asked if he could take the kids for lunch and she told him he could take his own kids to lunch which he did. When he returned, he was again “hanging out” with the girls (ie the complainant and his daughter), letting them climb all over him and he had them on his back. After the fun run, she saw him squatting down and giving Eskimo kisses to the complainant (ie rubbing their noses together). In her statement, Ms Webb expressed a number of opinions to the effect that the behaviour she had witnessed was “unusual and inappropriate” and “felt out of place”; that she thought, “That’s not right,” and “You don’t do that with other people’s kids.” Quite properly, the Crown do not intend to lead any opinion evidence of this kind from Ms Webb, simply evidence of what she observed. The Crown submits that this evidence is relevant as “context” evidence for a number of purposes. The previous physical contact by the accused with the complainant puts the current alleged offence into context in that it demonstrates that it was not an isolated, random physical act coming out of the blue; but rather a gradual progression of physical contact with the complainant as the accused established a rapport with her. It demonstrates that the accused had in fact built up a rapport, familiarity and trust with the complainant and puts in context the fact that she happily and comfortably accepted the invitation of the accused to help him clean the fish tank which entailed them being alone in the kitchen together without the other children being present.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.