Watson v The Queen

[2015] QDC 347

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Watson v The Queen [2015] QDC 347[1]

PARTIES:

STEVEN GARY WATSON
(applicant)

v

THE QUEEN
(respondent)

FILE NO:

1676 of 2015

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Pre-trial application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court

DELIVERED ON:

27 November 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 November 2015

JUDGE:

Reid DCJ

ORDER:

Application refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JOINDER – same facts or series of offences of same or similar character or committed in prosecution of a single purpose – where applicant charged with 11 counts against four complainants – where applicant applies for separate trials for each complainant – whether the evidence has strong probative effect

CASES:

R v MAP [2006] QCA 220
Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461
De Jesus v The Queen (1986) 68 ALR 1
Phillips v The Queen (2006) 225 CLR 303
HML v The Queen (2008) 235 CLR 334
R v Cranston (1988) 1 Qd R 159

LEGISLATION:

ss 567, 597A Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)

COUNSEL:

S. Courtney for the Applicant

S. Cupina for the Respondent

SOLICITORS:

TressCox Lawyers for the Applicant

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Respondent

[1] Upheld on appeal – [2017] QCA 82

INTRODUCTION

1. The applicant has been charged with 11 offences of sexual misconduct against four complainants.  The charges have all been joined in the one indictment.  He seeks orders for four separate trials – a separate trial for all charges against each separate complainant.  The application is opposed by the Crown.

BACKGROUND

1. The applicant was at all relevant times a grade five teacher at a State School in Maryborough.  Each of the complainants was a female student in his class – the first complainant in 2012, the second complainant (who is the sister of the first complainant) and the third complainant in 2013, and the fourth complainant in 2014.  Necessarily each child was about the same age, 10 years of age, at the time of the alleged offending. 

1. Each alleges unlawful sexual conduct taking place during school time only, generally in the classroom, library or computer room at the school.  Each alleges the misconduct involved only touching.  There is no suggestion of penile contact, of masturbation, nor of oral sex, features which commonly arise in matters of this sort.  Only one, the second complainant, alleges touching was under any clothes and she says the touching was under her pants, but outside her underpants.  Whilst the two sisters, the first and second complainants, allege he touched them on their vagina on the outside of their clothing, each of the first, third and fourth complainants say he touched their bottoms.  Each alleges he touched them more than once, although there is only one charge in relation to the second complainant. He is charged not only with four counts of indecent treatment but also one count of maintaining with respect to the first complainant.  Each of the first, second and third complainants say he on occasions gave them money to spend at the…