THE QUEEN v J M [NO 2]
[2011] ACTSC 60 (21 April 2011)
CRIMINAL LAW – jurisdiction practice and procedure – trial by judge alone – charges of neglect of children – accused found guilty.
CRIMINAL LAW – particular offences – offences against the person – neglect of children – elements of offences – meaning of neglect – whether actual harm required – whether mental element required.
EVIDENCE – admissions and declarations – effect of admissions.
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 184
Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT), s 91
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), ss 68B, 68C
Children and Young People Act 1999 (ACT), Pt 7.3
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 39
Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250
R v DM [2010] ACTSC 137
R v Mulcahy [2010] ACTSC 98
Di Lena v Western Australia (2006) 165 A Crim R 482
R V JM [2010] ACTSC 35
R v Senior [1899] 1 QB 283
No. SCC 482 of 2008
Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 21 April 2011
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SCC 482 of 2008
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
R
v
J M
ORDER
Judge: Refshauge J
Date: 21 April 2011
Place: Canberra
THE COURT FINDS THAT:
On the first count on the indictment, JM is guilty.
On the second count on the indictment, JM is guilty.
On the third count on the indictment, JM is guilty.
On the fourth count on the indictment, JM is guilty.
Police and Child Protection Workers visited the home of the accused, J M (whose name and the names of whose children are the subject of a non-publication order under s 91 of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT)), between 2 and 22 June 2008. As a result of the observations made during those visits, charges were laid against JM.
The indictment in this matter contained four counts as follows:
FIRST COUNT: ... that between 2 June 2008 and 22 June 2008, at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory, she neglected a child, namely L S, for whom she had parental responsibility.
SECOND COUNT: ... that, between 2 June 2008 and 22 June 2008, at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory, she neglected a child, namely J S, for whom she had parental responsibility.
THIRD COUNT: ... that, between 2 June 2008 and 22 June 2008, at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory, she neglected a child, namely L2 S, for whom she had parental responsibility.
FOURTH COUNT: ... that, between 2 June 2008 and 22 June 2008, at Canberra, in the Australian Capital Territory, she neglected a child, namely L3 S, for whom she had parental responsibility.
The proceedings
The accused appeared in the Magistrates Court on 26 June 2008 and was committed for trial on 16 December 2008.
On 7 July 2009, she made an election under s 68B of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) for trial by a judge without a jury and was arraigned on 18…
Continue reading The Queen v J M [No 2]
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- The Queen v J M [No 2] [2011] ACTSC 60
- Case
- [2011] ACTSC 60
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to decide on the meaning of neglect and whether it required actual harm to the children or if a mental element was sufficient. Additionally, the court had to consider the effect of admissions made by JM during the proceedings. The key issue was whether the neglect charges were correctly applied based on the evidence and admissions provided.
The court found JM guilty on all four counts of neglect of children. The reasoning behind the decision included the interpretation of neglect as not necessarily requiring actual harm, and the admissions made by JM were considered significant in reaching the verdict. The court concluded that the neglect charges were appropriately applied based on the evidence and admissions.
The final orders were that JM was found guilty on all four counts of neglect of children. The court's decision clarified the interpretation of neglect and the role of admissions in such cases.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. On the first count on the indictment, JM is guilty.
2. On the second count on the indictment, JM is guilty.
3. On the third count on the indictment, JM is guilty.
4. On the fourth count on the indictment, JM is guilty.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.