DPP v Drummond [2008] NSWLC 10

DPP v Drummond [2008] NSWLC 10

The filming of BG and HYH was indecent because, viewed with its surrounding circumstances and the accused's admitted purpose of sexual gratification, it had a sexual connotation. However, the indecency charges failed because the Crown did not prove the statutory element that the acts were committed "towards" the complainants: the accused did not intend BG or HYH to know they were being filmed and concealed the camera. The child pornography charges concerning BG were proved because the footage depicted BG, who was 14, in a sexual context, and in all the circumstances, including the concealed filming up a schoolgirl's uniform for later sexual gratification, would cause offence to reasonable...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Reasons for Decision in the Local Court on Charged Offences
Outcome
Charge sequences 1 and 5 dismissed; charge sequences 3 and 4 proved.
Legal Topics
['act of Indecency Towards a Person' 'child Pornography' 'producing Child Pornography' 'possessing Child Pornography' 'statutory Interpretation' 'non Publication Order']
['criminal Law'] ['act of Indecency Towards a Person' 'child Pornography' 'producing Child Pornography' 'possessing Child Pornography' 'statutory Interpretation' 'non Publication Order']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Reasons for Decision in the Local Court on Charged Offences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the accused's filming conduct constituted an act of indecency." 'Whether the alleged acts of indecency were committed "towards" BG and HYH within Crimes Act 1900 s 61N.' 'Whether the video footage of BG depicted a person under or apparently under 16 years in a sexual context and in a manner that would in all the circumstances cause offence to reasonable persons under Crimes Act 1900 s 91H.']

Ratio Decidendi

The filming of BG and HYH was indecent because, viewed with its surrounding circumstances and the accused's admitted purpose of sexual gratification, it had a sexual connotation. However, the indecency charges failed because the Crown did not prove the statutory element that the acts were committed "towards" the complainants: the accused did not intend BG or HYH to know they were being filmed and concealed the camera. The child pornography charges concerning BG were proved because the footage depicted BG, who was 14, in a sexual context, and in all the circumstances, including the concealed filming up a schoolgirl's uniform for later sexual gratification, would cause offence to reasonable...

Court Disposition

Charge sequences 1 and 5 dismissed; charge sequences 3 and 4 proved.

Orders

  • ['Charge sequences 1 & 5 dismissed' 'Charge sequences 3 & 4 proved']