Leader-Elliott, The Commonwealth Criminal Code – A Guide for Practitioners (March 2002)
Parliamentary Counsel’s Committee, Parliament of Australia, Model Criminal Code (1st Edition, 28 May 2009)
Michael Ward, Criminal Law and Practice (Volume II, 1996)
Parties:
M Woodburn ( Informant)
NE ( Young Person)
Representation:
Counsel
J Melloy ( Informant)
T Taylor ( Young Person)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions
Hugo Law (Young Person)
File Number:
CH 1468 of 2023
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CHRISTENSEN
REASONS FOR DECISION:
Introduction
1․NE is charged pursuant to s 716 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code) – an offence titled ‘Compounding of offence’.
2․It is alleged that between 8 and 13 May 2022, NE offered to provide a benefit to JV, and that he did so with the intention that JV would withhold information or provide false or misleading information in relation to the commission of an offence.
3․By way of particulars provided in advance of the hearing, the prosecution particularised that the offence the intention related to was an offence by an adult person of committing an act of indecency upon a person under 16, namely NN.
4․The prosecution alleged that NE contacted JV over a social media platform, Snapchat, and offered to give her $500 to make a statement to ‘help out’ the adult person, who was charged with the act of indecency, and to say ‘nah, it didn’t happen…to get him out’.
5․The matter has proceeded to date to hearing…
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 Woodburn v NE
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Woodburn v NE [2023] ACTCC 2
Case
[2023] ACTCC 2
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Woodburn v NE, the respondent, an officer of the New South Wales Police Force, was charged with compounding an offence under s. 204A of the Crimes Act 1900. The dispute arose from the respondent's alleged actions during an arrest of the appellant, Mr Woodburn, which led to the appellant's charges being withdrawn. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, with Justice Hulme presiding.
The court had to determine whether the respondent's actions amounted to compounding an offence and if the particulars in the indictment were sufficient. A key issue was whether the particulars were sufficient to allow the jury to properly consider the evidence and whether the respondent's actions could be considered as compounding an offence under the statute. The court also needed to assess the sufficiency of the evidence, including whether the evidence was circumstantial and whether it was sufficient to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
Justice Hulme held that the particulars were sufficient and correctly described the offence. The court found that the respondent's actions could be considered as compounding an offence as they involved an agreement to withdraw charges in exchange for a payment of $2000. The court also concluded that the evidence, while circumstantial, was sufficient to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The no case submission was rejected, and the case proceeded to the jury. The orders of the court were to reject the no case submission.