The Queen v Drover - [2022] NTSC 12

CITATION:The Queen v Drover [2022] NTSC 12
PARTIES:THE QUEEN
v

DROVER, Donna

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:22112226
DELIVERED:  14 February 2022
HEARING DATE:  14 February 2022
JUDGMENT OF:  Hiley AJ

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – EVIDENCE – Recorded statements - Vulnerable witness - Application to admit recorded statement of complainant pursuant to s 21B of the Evidence Act 1939 (NT) - Whether a person whose relationship with the accused was brief and ended in 1985 “is in a domestic relationship with” the accused within the meaning of s 21AB(d) of the Evidence Act 1939 (NT) - Broad definitions of “domestic relationship” in s 9 of the Domestic and Family Violence Act 2007 (NT) - Complainant had a “family relationship” as defined in s 10 because there was a child of the relationship – Also an “intimate personal relationship” as defined in s 11(2) - No good reason not to admit the recorded statement under s 21B - Recorded statement admitted.

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Crown:S Ozolins
Accused:J Blackley
Solicitors:
Crown:Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Accused:North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:  Hil2201
Number of pages:  5

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
The Queen v Drover [2022] NTSC 12

No. 22112226

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

AND:

DONNA MARIE DROVER

CORAM: HILEY AJ
REASONS FOR RULING
(Delivered 14 February 2022)

The prosecutor requested the Court to admit a recorded statement of the complainant into evidence, pursuant to s 21B of the Evidence Act 1939 (NT) (the Act). The statement was recorded by police on 16 April 2021 when they interviewed him in hospital the morning after the accused is said to have assaulted him. This would mean that the Crown could show the jury the video record of the interview as part of its evidence in chief.
The request is based upon the contention that the complainant is “a complainant in a domestic violence offence proceeding” and is therefore a “vulnerable witness” within the meaning of s 21AB(d) of the Act. The complainant appears to be an able bodied man in his 50s. He and the accused had a child in 1985 but he has never seen the child.
There are 2 relevant preconditions under s 21B:
(a)that the proceedings are for a sexual offence or a serious violence offence[1] (s 21B(1)); and
(b)that the complainant is a “vulnerable witness” (s 21B(2)).
Once those preconditions are satisfied, the Court is required to admit the recorded statement in evidence “unless there is good reason for not doing so” (s 21B(3)).
In my opinion the complainant is a vulnerable witness, within the meaning of s 21AB(d) of the Act. He is a “complainant” in a “domestic violence offence proceeding” for a “domestic violence offence”, terms defined in

s 21G of the Act. Section 21G also defines “domestic violence” by reference to s 5 of the Domestic and Family Violence…

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 Drover

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Drover [2022] NTSC 12
Case: [2022] NTSC 12
Decision Date: 14 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of The Queen v Drover was heard in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, which exercised its Territory jurisdiction over the criminal case. The dispute centered on the admissibility of a recorded statement of the complainant, who claimed to be a victim of assault by the accused, Donna Marie Drover. The Crown sought to admit the recorded statement into evidence under s 21B of the Evidence Act 1939 (NT), which pertains to the admission of recorded statements of vulnerable witnesses in domestic violence proceedings. The central issue for the court to determine was whether the complainant qualified as a vulnerable witness under the Act, given the nature and duration of his relationship with the accused.

The court had to consider whether the complainant was "in a domestic relationship with" the accused within the meaning of s 21AB(d) of the Evidence Act. This required an interpretation of the term "domestic relationship" as defined by the Domestic and Family Violence Act 2007 (NT). The court found that the complainant, despite the brevity and historical nature of his relationship with the accused, still qualified as a vulnerable witness due to the existence of a family relationship, as they had a child together in 1985. Additionally, the court concluded that the complainant had also been in an intimate personal relationship with the accused, satisfying the criteria for a domestic relationship under s 9 of the Domestic and Family Violence Act. Consequently, the complainant was deemed a vulnerable witness, and the court found no valid reason to exclude the recorded statement under s 21B(3) of the Evidence Act.

In light of the above findings, the court admitted the recorded statement of the complainant into evidence, allowing the Crown to present the video record of the police interview as part of its evidence in chief. This decision enabled the jury to assess the credibility and reliability of the complainant's evidence during the trial, while also considering any potential unreliability or inconsistencies during cross-examination and deliberation.

Orders