The Queen v Gibson - [2021] NTSC 28

CITATION:The Queen v Gibson [2021] NTSC 28
PARTIES:THE QUEEN
v

GIBSON, Jessiah

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT exercising Territory Jurisdiction
FILE NO:21928324
DELIVERED:  25 February 2021
HEARING DATE:  25 February 2021
JUDGMENT OF:  Grant CJ
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Crown:T Mcnamee
Accused:K Roussos
Solicitors:
Crown:Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Accused:Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission
Judgment category classification:    C
Judgment ID Number:  GRA2101
Number of pages:  10

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
The Queen v Gibson [2021] NTSC 28

No. 21928324
BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

AND:

JESSIAH GIBSON

CORAM: GRANT CJ
EDITED REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered ex tempore on 25 February 2021)

The accused is charged with three offences.
The first offence is unlawfully entering a building with the intent to commit an offence, with the aggravating circumstances that the offence intended to be committed was an indictable offence, namely, an act of gross indecency, and that the building was a dwelling house.
The second offence charged is that the accused committed an act of gross indecency on the complainant.
The third offence charged is that the accused unlawfully assaulted the complainant’s five-year old son with the aggravating circumstance that the child was under the age of 16 at the time and the accused was an adult.
The accused has indicated an intention to plead guilty to the first offence, but not to the aggravating circumstance that the offence intended to be committed upon entry to the building was an act of gross indecency. The accused has also indicated an intention to plead guilty to the third offence. The accused has indicated an intention to plead not guilty to the charge of committing an act of gross indecency.
Defence counsel had initially raised six issues for preliminary determination. They were:
(a)whether the evidence of the complainant’s five-year old son is admissible at trial in circumstances where the accused intends to plead guilty to the charge of unlawfully assaulting that child;
(b)whether a series of photographs depicting the complainant’s injuries are admissible;
(c)whether certain materials should be redacted from the complainant’s recorded statement which will constitute her evidence-in-chief at trial of the matter;
(d)whether the Crown is obliged to provide a proposed witness list;
(e)whether the Crown had adequately particularised the act relied upon in the charge of committing an act of gross indecency; and
(f)whether the Crown is required to provide a statement from the witness assistance officer who participated in a conference between the prosecutor and the complainant on 20 February 2020.
Prior to the conduct of the voir dire hearing the issues concerning the witness list and particulars of the offence were resolved between the parties. At the commencement of the voir dire hearing, defence counsel accepted that a statement from the witness assistance officer was unnecessary in circumstances where the issue sought to be ventilated at trial, which is the complainant’s failure prior to that conference on 20 February 2020 to make any reference…

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 Gibson

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Gibson [2021] NTSC 28
Case: [2021] NTSC 28
Decision Date: 25 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory was a case where the accused, Jessiah Gibson, faced multiple charges including unlawful entry with intent to commit an indictable offence, act of gross indecency, and assault on a child under 16. The Crown presented the case against Gibson, who indicated an intention to plead guilty to the charges of unlawful entry and assault but not to the aggravating circumstance of the indictable offence and the act of gross indecency. Various issues were raised for preliminary determination, including the admissibility of certain evidence, but some were resolved before the hearing. The court was tasked with deciding on the admissibility of the complainant's son's evidence, photographs of the complainant's injuries, and the redaction of parts of the complainant's recorded statement.

The court examined the relevance and admissibility of the child's evidence, noting that while the child's account did not detail the indecency, it was still relevant as it described the struggle between the complainant and the accused. The court considered the discretion under sections 135 and 137 of the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT), determining that the probative value of the child's evidence outweighed any prejudicial effects. The court also found that the photographs of the complainant's injuries were relevant to the case, providing clarity on the nature and location of the injuries sustained, and therefore admissible. The issue of redaction of parts of the complainant's recorded statement was deferred for further argument.

The court ruled that the evidence of the complainant's son and the photographs of her injuries were admissible, rejecting the defence's arguments for exclusion based on prejudice. The court deferred ruling on the redaction of the complainant’s recorded statement until a later hearing. The court's decision ensures that relevant evidence is considered in the trial, balancing the probative value against any prejudicial effects, while adhering to legal standards for evidence admissibility.

Orders