The Queen v Joyce - [2005] NTSC 21

[Back to Main List] [Back to NTSC 2005 List] The Queen v Joyce [2005] NTSC 21

PARTIES: THE QUEEN

ANTHONY THOMAS JOYCE

TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION

FILE NO: SCC 20411098

DELIVERED: 26 April 2005

HEARING DATES: 5/4/2005 to 8/4/2005

JUDGMENT OF: RILEY J

CATCHWORDS:

Evidence – Criminal trial – Expert evidence – Admissibility – Opinion of
psychologist on reliability of child complainant – Whether a person without
instruction or experience in the area would be able to form a sound judgment
on the matter without the assistance of the expert’s special knowledge or
experience.

Evidence – Criminal trial – Admissibility – Pre-recorded interview of child
complainant – Complaint evidence – Exception to hearsay rule – The
Evidence Reform (Children and Sexual Offences) Act 2004 – Evidence Act
(NT) ss 21B, 26E – Whether of sufficient probative value.

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Applicant: E. Armitage
Respondent: J. Tippett QC

Solicitors:
Applicant: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent: Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission

Judgment category classification: B
Judgment ID Number: ril0505
Number of pages: 32

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

The Queen v Joyce [2005] NTSC 21
No 20411098

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN
Applicant

AND:

ANTHONY THOMAS JOYCE
Respondent

CORAM: RILEY J

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 26 April 2005)

[1] This is an application made pursuant to s 26L of the Evidence Act to determine the admissibility of certain evidence upon which the Crown seeks to rely in the proceedings against Anthony Thomas Joyce.
[2] Mr Joyce is charged with two offences of unlawfully and indecently dealing with a child, J, who was then aged 9 years, contrary to the provisions of s 132(2)(a), (3) and (4) of the Criminal Code. These are “sexual offences” for the purposes of the Evidence Act. The Crown case is that the child stayed with Mr Joyce over a period of days in early January 2004. It is claimed that between 1 January 2004 and 5 January 2004 Mr Joyce indecently dealt with him by, inter alia, touching him inappropriately on the penis and “parts around his penis” and also by kissing him “on the corner of the lips”. Upon his return to his home the child separately told his mother and his brother of the occurrences which he says took place at the home of Mr Joyce.
[3] In the course of the police investigation into the alleged offending two video-taped records of interview were conducted with J. The first of those was between Detective O’Connor and J conducted over a period of approximately 1½ hours on 3 March 2004. The second was an interview with Detective Wurst conducted over a period of approximately 45 minutes on 22 April 2004. In each of the interviews J was taken through the events which are said to have taken place at the beginning of January 2004. The Crown seeks to introduce the two video-taped records…

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 Joyce

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Joyce [2005] NTSC 021
Case: [2005] NTSC 21
Decision Date: 26 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In The Queen v Joyce, the accused, Anthony Thomas Joyce, was charged with two offences of unlawfully and indecently dealing with a child, J, who was 9 years old at the time of the alleged offences. The Crown sought to introduce into evidence two video-taped records of interview with J, conducted by police, as well as complaints made by J to his mother and brother. The accused objected to the admissibility of this evidence, arguing that it lacked sufficient probative value. The court had to determine the admissibility of the evidence in light of the Evidence Reform (Children and Sexual Offences) Act 2004 and the Evidence Act.

The court ruled that the video-taped records of interview could be admitted as evidence in chief in a special hearing, in accordance with s 21B(2)(a) of the Evidence Act, subject to the child being available for cross-examination. The court found that the statements made in the interviews, while not spontaneous, were not unreliable and could be considered as evidence of the facts in issue. Furthermore, the complaints made by J to his mother and brother were admitted as evidence of the facts in issue pursuant to s 26E of the Evidence Act, as they were made in circumstances that were consistent with what would be expected from a child in that situation. The court also considered the expert evidence provided by a Professor of Psychology, but found that the subject matter of the opinion did not require the assistance of an expert as it was within the ordinary experience of people.

Orders