Legal Research
Cases
The Queen v Rowe

The Queen v Rowe

Case [2022] NTSC 55 19 July 2022

Pre-trial Publicity

Jurisdiction

Contempt of Court

Admissibility of Evidence

Expert Evidence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: The Queen v Rowe [2022] NTSC 55

PARTIES: THE QUEEN

v
ROWE, Kent

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:22131061, 22114274
DELIVERED:  19 July 2022
HEARING DATE:  8 July 2022
JUDGMENT OF:  Grant CJ

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Applicant:M Chalmers SC
Respondent:  T Grealy
Solicitors:
Applicant:Hubber Legal
Respondent:  Office of the Director for Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:              B
Judgment ID Number:  GRA2203
Number of pages:  16

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
The Queen v Rowe [2022] NTSC 55

No. 22131061, 22114274

BETWEEN:
THE QUEEN

AND:
KENT ROWE

CORAM: GRANT CJ
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Delivered 19 July 2022)

The accused is charged with four counts of sexual intercourse without consent. Aggravated incest is charged as an alternative to three of those counts. The trial is fixed to commence on 29 August 2022.
On 8 July 2022, the accused made application for a temporary stay of the trial for a period of at least 12 months; and an extension of interim non-publication orders which were made on 9 June 2022. The Crown opposed the application for a stay and adopted a neutral position in relation to the extension of the non-publication orders. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (‘ABC’), Nationwide News Pty Ltd and the complainant appeared as intervenors in the application and opposed any extension of the interim non-publication orders.

The basis for the applications

The allegations against the accused may be described in broad terms as follows. The accused and the complainant are [REDACTED]. The first two counts involve an allegation of sexual intercourse without consent when the accused was 14 or 15 years of age and the complainant was seven or eight years of age. The next two counts involve an allegation of sexual intercourse without consent at or about the same time. The fifth count involves an allegation of sexual intercourse without consent when the accused was between 18 and 20 years of age and the complainant was between 11 and 13 years of age. The final two counts involve an allegation of sexual intercourse without consent when the accused was between 20 and 21 years of age and the complainant was 13 years of age.
The basis for the accused’s application is that he has been subject to intensive and prejudicial publicity concerning matters unrelated to the present charges; that publicity concerned his involvement in morally repugnant conduct likely to attract condemnation by a substantial proportion of the community, and attendant allegations that he had lied in relation to that involvement; that the events have become deeply embedded in the public consciousness as the ‘cocaine sex scandal’; and that he will not be able to receive a fair trial until sufficient time has elapsed to allow those matters to dim in the memories of prospective jurors. The adjunct to that primary submission is that there must necessarily be orders prohibiting publication of the accused’s name in relation the present charges, including publications…

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 Rowe

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Rowe [2022] NTSC 55
Case: [2022] NTSC 55
Decision Date: 19 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, the accused, Kent Rowe, faces four counts of sexual intercourse without consent, with three counts also alleging aggravated incest. Rowe has applied for a temporary stay of proceedings to allow for prejudicial media coverage of his prior involvement in the 'cocaine sex scandal' to dissipate and for an extension of non-publication orders to prevent further reporting on the current charges. The Crown opposes the stay but adopts a neutral position on the extension of the non-publication orders. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Nationwide News Pty Ltd, and the complainant also oppose the extension of the non-publication orders. The Court rejected the application for a stay, finding that the publicity in question was not of sufficient intensity, proximity, and nature to warrant a stay. The Court granted the application for an extension of the non-publication orders, finding that further reporting of the charges was likely to refresh jurors' memories of the prejudicial aspects of the 'cocaine sex scandal' and that the non-publication orders would substantially allay that risk. The orders of the Court are that the application for a stay is refused, the non-publication orders are extended until the start of the trial, and the publication of these reasons is restricted to the parties and intervenors until further order.

Orders