Teshabaev v R

1. [1]

   BEECH-JONES CJ at CL: This is an application for leave to appeal pursuant to s 5F(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW).

2. [2]

   The applicant, Kodirjon Teshabaev, is due to stand trial in the District Court on an indictment that charges him with three offences of exposing a child under the age of 14 years to indecent material with the intention of making it easier to procure the child for unlawful sexual activity contrary to s 66EB(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), and 12 offences of having sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 10 years contrary to s 66A(1) of the Crimes Act. The alleged victim of all 15 charges is the same young girl, AY. AY was 8 or 9 years of age at the time of the alleged offences.

3. [3]

   The application arises out of a judgment given by the trial judge, Harris DCJ, on 3 August 2022. Her Honour ruled that certain evidence which the applicant seeks to have admitted at his trial is inadmissible by reason of s 294CB of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) and declined to grant a permanent stay of the proceedings on the basis that the exclusion of that evidence rendered the trial unfair. By his grounds of appeal the applicant contended that both of these matters were wrongly decided

4. [4]

   The application was listed at short notice before this Court on 26 August 2022. At the conclusion of argument, the Court made the following orders:

   1. (1)

      Leave to appeal be refused;

   2. (2)

      Within one week of the completion of the proceedings at first instance, the Respondent is to notify the Chambers of Beech-Jones CJ at CL accordingly.

5. [5]

   My reasons for joining in these orders are as follows. In summary, I consider that this Court has no jurisdiction to review the trial judge’s evidentiary ruling and no error of the kind stated in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 (“House”) was demonstrated in relation to her Honour’s refusal of a permanent stay.

The Disclosures by AY

1. [6]

   According to the Crown case statement, the applicant was living with AY and her family at the time that the alleged offences were committed in 2018 and 2019. The Crown case statement identifies three occasions in that period when the applicant allegedly showed AY pornography as part of a process of grooming her for sexual activity. On one of those occasions, it is alleged that, after showing her pornography, “he pulled her tights and underpants down and inserted his fingers into her vagina and into her anus” giving rise to one of the charges under s 66A(1). The other charges under s 66A(1) involve allegations of the applicant sexually interfering with AY in a similar way. The Crown’s submissions on this application referred to the alleged offending as “grave”. I agree.

2. [7]

   According to the Crown case statement, on 9 December 2020 AY spoke to her teacher at school. She disclosed that the applicant “took off her clothes and put his rude part inside her and it hurt” and referred to him showing her “S-E-X videos while he does this”. AY was interviewed by the police later that day and participated in further interviews on 14 December 2020 and 19 January 2021. The applicant was arrested and interviewed on 11 December 2020. He admitted that he viewed pornographic material on his phone and that he discovered AY looking at pornographic material on his phone on two separate occasions. However, he denied the substance of the allegations against him.

3. [8]

   The evidence the subject of the application to the trial judge is part of a document prepared by AY’s teacher and part of AY’s interview on 9 December 2020.

4. [9]

   In her statement, AY’s teacher said that, prior to AY’s disclosures about the applicant, AY told her that her grandfather “calls me the devil, he tells me I shouldn’t be born” and described how once her grandfather “got angry, picked me up by my hair and used a stick to beat me”. The teacher said that about half an hour later she was attempting to console AY when she made the disclosures about the applicant noted above.

5. [10]

   Tendered on the application before the primary judge was a document entitled “incident report” that appears to have been prepared by the teacher on the same day as AY’s disclosures about her grandfather and the applicant. It included the following:

6. [11]

   As noted, later that day AY was interviewed by the police. During the interview she was asked and gave answers as follows:

7. [12]

   The evidence the subject of the application to the trial judge was the part of the incident report which purports to indicate that AY alleged her grandfather touched her “rude part” and her disclaimer of that suggestion in this interview.

The Application to the Trial Judge

1. [13]

   The proceedings were apparently listed for trial on 1 August 2022. However, empanelment did not occur as various pre-trial issues had to be addressed. One of those issues was an application by the applicant to (further) cross‑examine AY. During that application, counsel indicated he wished to cross‑examine AY’s teacher about the reference to her grandfather touching her “rude part”. The trial judge indicated that there was a potential difficulty with the admission of that evidence under “s 293” (being a reference to the statutory predecessor to s 294CB of the Criminal Procedure Act). Her Honour pressed the applicant’s counsel on the relevance of the evidence that AY (supposedly) accused her grandfather of touching her and then resiled from making that accusation. He responded:

2. [14]

   The following morning, her Honour upheld the application to recall AY. Counsel for the applicant then applied to the trial judge for a ruling that the evidence noted above was admissible. He foreshadowed applying for a permanent stay of the proceedings if it were ruled inadmissible. Counsel repeated the above contention as to its relevance but added “whether or not the grandfather abused her … is entirely irrelevant to my client’s case”.

3. [15]

   The relevant statutory provisions are set out below. Counsel for the applicant contended that the evidence did not fall within any of the prohibitions in ss 294CB(1)-(3). Counsel did not rely on any of the exceptions in s 294CB(4). The basis of the contention that the evidence was not excluded by s 294CB(3) was put as follows:

4. [16]

   Later in submissions, counsel sought to distinguish the position of AY from the position of the complainant in Jackmain (a pseudonym) v R (2020) 102 NSWLR 847; [2020] NSWCCA 150 (“Jackmain”) by noting that the complainant in that case had a history of sexual experiences whereas with AY it was contended that “[t]here is nothing from her side of it that can contribute to the concept of sexual experience”.

5. [17]

   Following the completion of counsel’s submissions, her Honour indicated that the evidence was inadmissible under s 294CB (although reasons were to be delivered the following day). Counsel then made submissions in support of an application for a permanent stay.

The Trial Judge’s Judgment

1. [18]

   The following morning the trial judge gave reasons for rejecting the evidence and declining to grant a permanent stay.

2. [19]

   In relation to s 294CB, the trial judge noted that, in HG v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 414; [1999] HCA 2 (“HG”), it was held that the equivalent provision to current s 294CB(3) in former s 409B of the Crimes Act did not draw a distinction “between consensual and non-consensual sexual acts” including sexual acts concerning children. Her Honour also rejected a submission, supposedly derived from Jackmain, that the scope of s 294CB is governed by a purpose of “protect[ing] complainants from embarrassment, [and] to remove the discouragement … from complaining”. Her Honour found “that the representation of [AY] that her grandfather … touche[d] her vagina is evidence of [AY] being engaged in sexual activity albeit non-consensual activity.” Her Honour ruled that the evidence of that representation and the above parts of AY’s interview on 9 December 2020 were inadmissible.

3. [20]

   In relation to the application for a permanent stay, the trial judge noted the principles applicable to the grant of a stay including those enunciated in Jago v District Court of NSW (1989) 168 CLR 23; [1989] HCA 46 (“Jago”). Her Honour recorded her acceptance of the Crown’s submission that this was “not an exceptional case that requires the extreme remedy of a permanent stay.” Her Honour accepted that the excluded evidence related to a discrete previous representation by AY about her grandfather that she disavowed shortly afterwards. Her Honour noted that there would be other evidence contradicting the matters recorded by AY’s teacher in the incident report. Her Honour did not accept that the redaction of the part referring to her grandfather touching her “rude part” would result in the remainder “unfairly represent[ing] the whole of what [AY] intended to state.” Her Honour continued:

4. [21]

   The anticipated “other evidence” to which her Honour referred is evidence that AY’s father is expected to give at the trial.

Legislative Provisions and Jackmain

1. [22]

   Section 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act relevantly provides:

2. [23]

   It is well established that an evidentiary ruling is not a “judgment or order” for the purposes of these provisions (Liristis v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2018] NSWCCA 196 at [15] (Basten JA, Macfarlan and Leeming JJA agreeing); Jackmain at [74] (Leeming JA, Bathurst CJ, Johnson, Button and Wilson JJ agreeing). To accommodate this, s 5F(3A) provides for a right of appeal by the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions (the “DPP”) “against any decision or ruling on the admissibility of evidence” although that is limited to only those decisions or rulings which eliminate or substantially weaken the prosecution's case.

3. [24]

   Section 294CB of the Criminal Procedure Act relevantly provides:

4. [25]

   As noted, this is the statutory successor to former s 293 of the Criminal Procedure Act (which was the successor to s 409B of the Crimes Act). Section 294CB(4) provides for various exceptions to ss 294CB(1)-(3), none of which were relied on by the applicant.

5. [26]

   Much judicial and extra-judicial ink has been spilt over the statutory predecessors. However, to determine this application, it is only necessary to refer to the recent judgment of a five-judge bench of this Court in Jackmain. Like this case, Jackmain involved an application for leave to appeal by an accused person against a determination by a trial judge that evidence was rendered inadmissible by s 293(3) (now s 294CB(3)) and a refusal to grant a permanent stay. Unlike this case, the accused in Jackmain contended that, if s 293 had the effect of excluding the relevant evidence, then it was invalid as it infringed an implied limitation on State legislative power (relying on Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51; [1996] HCA 24).

6. [27]

   In Jackmain, the accused sought to raise six grounds of appeal: the first three of which concerned the construction of s 293; the fourth of which concerned the decision to refuse a permanent stay; the fifth being the constitutional challenge just noted; and the sixth being a further challenge to the trial judge’s evidentiary ruling (at [69]). Given the constitutional challenge, Leeming JA accepted that the first three grounds which concerned the construction of s 293 (and in turn affected the admission of the evidence) could be raised, as the proper construction of a statutory provision is an essential step in the process of determining its constitutional validity (at [70] citing Gypsy Jokers Motorcycle Club Inc v Commissioner of Police (2008) 234 CLR 532; [2008] HCA 4 at [11], with whom Bathurst CJ at [5] agreed). As Bathurst CJ observed (at [5]), “the constitutional challenge transforms the nature of the application from merely a ruling on evidence, even if the issue to be determined is, so far as the direct parties are concerned, only a stepping stone in an argument concerning the admissibility of evidence”.

7. [28]

   However, ground 6 of the proposed appeal in Jackmain was not a step in the constitutional challenge to s 293. It was nevertheless argued that this Court could consider this ground as part of its determination as to whether a permanent stay could be granted (at [75]). Rejecting that contention, Leeming JA concluded (at [79]):

8. [29]

   Each of Bathurst CJ, Johnson, Button and Wilson JJ (at [4], [231], [238] and [240] respectively) agreed with this conclusion.

9. [30]

   So far as the proper construction of former s 293(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act was concerned, Jackmain confirmed the application of the following passage in M v R (1993) 67 A Crim R 549 (“M v R”) at 554-555 (Allen J, Gleeson CJ and Meagher JA agreeing) concerning s 409(3) of the Crimes Act to its statutory successors:

10. [31]

    Although in Jackmain Leeming JA doubted the correctness of this approach (at [153]-[154] and [156]), his Honour held that M v R should continue to be applied to the statutory successors to s 409B (at [178]). Chief Justice Bathurst did not express those doubts but otherwise affirmed the ongoing application of the above passage (at [12]) and reiterated the effect of the emphasised part of the above extract when his Honour stated (at [22]):

11. [32]

    Both Johnson and Button JJ (at [232] and [239] respectively) agreed with Bathurst CJ on this issue. Justice Wilson (at [240]) also agreed and disclaimed any doubts about the correctness of M v R (at [242] to [248]).

12. [33]

    Lastly Jackmain confirmed that, even though s 294CB might operate to preclude the admission of certain evidence, the courts retained the power to permanently stay proceedings if the application of the provision in the particular circumstances of a particular case warranted it (at [202] to [206] per Leeming JA applying KS v Veitch (No 2) (2012) 84 NSWLR 172; [2012] NSWCCA 266 at [38] per Basten JA).

Ground 1: Section 294CB

1. [34]

   Ground 1 of the application contends that the trial judge erred in concluding that the evidence identified above was inadmissible under s 294CB of the Criminal Procedure Act. To that end, the applicant seeks an order that the evidence “be permitted to be adduced”.

2. [35]

   The submissions of the applicant in support of this ground contend that the decision in HG was “not relevant to the argument that the accused was making to her Honour”. I have difficulty in accepting that contention in light of the submissions made to the trial judge and set out above (at [15]). The applicant clearly submitted to the trial judge that, because of AY’s age, she could not be said to have had a “sexual experience” or to have taken part in “sexual activity”. That contention was expressly rejected in HG (at 425, per Gleeson CJ).

3. [36]

   The balance of the applicant’s submissions on the substance of this ground repeated the contention that, unlike in other cases where the evidence was held to be inadmissible under s 294CB(3), in this case it was not contended that AY was lying about being sexually assaulted by her grandfather but instead the applicant was only seeking to rely on the inconsistency between her alleged statement to her teacher and what she told the police as a matter affecting her credit. It was submitted that, as it was not proposed to cross‑examine AY about this material but only tender it and ask other witnesses questions to prove the provenance of this material, it would not infringe what was described by Bathurst CJ in Jackmain (at [23]) as the purpose of the statutory prohibitions in s 294CB, namely, “to prevent embarrassing and humiliating cross-examination about past sexual activities which it was believed was a deterrent in reporting sexual offences.”

4. [37]

   In oral submissions, counsel for the applicant, Mr Skinner, sought to confine M v R, Jackmain and all the cases that have considered s 294CB(3) and its predecessors to their “facts” such that they should not be construed or applied as preventing the evidence sought to be adduced in this case for the reason noted above (at [12]).

5. [38]

   Amongst its many points in response, the Crown submitted that this contention overlooks that M v R and Jackmain clearly held that the purpose of the adducing of the relevant evidence is irrelevant to the application of s 294CB(3). The provision renders evidence that “discloses or implies” the matters stated in ss 294CB(3)(a) or (b) inadmissible regardless of the purpose of its tender.

6. [39]

   Further, relying on the above passages from Jackmain, the Crown contended that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain this ground. The applicant’s response to that contention was to rely on that part of Jackmain that considered those arguments which concerned the proper construction of s 293 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the course of determining the constitutional validity of the provision, and somehow sought to extend that reasoning to his appeal against the refusal of a stay. Hence, the applicant’s written submissions contended:

7. [40]

   As explained above, in considering the refusal of the trial judge to grant a stay in Jackmain the Court did not revisit the trial judge’s ruling on the admissibility of the evidence that was the subject of ground 6 of the appeal. Instead, that ruling was accepted as the basis for the stay application and the Court held that it had no jurisdiction to deal with ground 6. This ground is no different to ground 6 considered in Jackmain. It follows that the Court has no jurisdiction to determine it.

8. [41]

   Every aspect of the applicant’s contentions in respect of this ground, including that the Court has jurisdiction to hear it, is untenable. I would refuse leave to raise it.

Ground 2: Refusal of a Permanent Stay

1. [42]

   Ground 2 of the application contends that the trial judge erred in refusing to grant a permanent stay.

2. [43]

   The trial judge’s reasons for refusing a permanent stay are summarised above. As noted, her Honour referred to the well-known passage from the judgment of Mason CJ in Jago at 30 to 34 to the effect that the continuation of the prosecution must be inconsistent with the recognised purposes of criminal justice and so constitute an abuse of the process of the court, and that “[t]o justify a permanent stay of criminal proceedings, there must be a fundamental defect which goes to the root of the trial ‘of such a nature that nothing that a trial judge can do in the conduct of the trial can relieve against its unfair consequences’” (at 34).

3. [44]

   The grant of a permanent stay is a discretionary remedy (Jago at 31). A successful appeal from a refusal of a permanent stay requires the demonstration of House error (R v RD [2016] NSWCCA 84 at [58] (Bathurst CJ, Johnson J and R S Hulme AJ agreeing). The applicant’s submissions in support of this ground do not identify any such error. Instead, they contend that, by pointing to other material available to the applicant in the incident report which might form a basis for attacking AY’s credit, the trial judge “substantially undervalue[d] the strong probative weight of the evidence the subject of her [Honour’s] ruling, and to overvalue the probative weight of these other matters”. The submission continued:

4. [45]

   A contention that the trial judge attached too much or too little weight to a matter does not raise a complaint of House error. In any event, these submissions do not come close to demonstrating any form of error on the part of the trial judge. The essence of the submission is that the trial judge’s ruling precluded AY’s credit from being attacked by simply tendering the incident report and then tendering that part of the ERISP where she denied being touched by her grandfather, whereas proving the falsity of the balance of the matters in the incident report is apparently dependent on AY’s father’s evidence. The principal difficulty with that contention is that, even if the evidence the subject of this application were admitted, either or both of AY and her teacher may not accept that AY said what is recorded in the incident report about her grandfather touching her. In other words, the capacity of all the material in the incident report to affect AY’s credit is at least to some degree dependent on the oral testimony of the various witnesses. In any event, the potential that proof of the falsity of the balance of the statements in the incident report might come unstuck because the evidence of AY’s father might not be as anticipated, or his evidence might not be accepted, does not undermine the trial judge’s reasoning. The trial judge’s assessment of the significance to the trial of the excluded evidence was not shown to be in error. Otherwise, bearing in mind that the excluded evidence did not directly concern the applicant, its exclusion did not come even close to justifying such a drastic measure as ordering a permanent stay.

5. [46]

   I would refuse leave to raise ground 2.

Orders

1. [47]

   Given that these reasons are being published at a time that is likely to be close to the commencement of the trial, they will not be published on Caselaw. To facilitate their being published more widely when the trial concludes, the Court also orders that the DPP advise the Court when the proceedings at first instance are complete. Before doing so, the DPP should confer with the applicant’s legal representatives about what matters, if any, in this judgment might need to be anonymised and advise accordingly.

2. [48]

   ADAMSON J: I agree with Beech-Jones CJ at CL.

3. [49]

   BELLEW J: I agree with Beech-Jones CJ at CL.