Director of Public Prosecutions v Murphy (a pseudonym) [2023] NSWLC 11

Director of Public Prosecutions v Murphy (a pseudonym) [2023] NSWLC 11

The Court found beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Murphy intentionally touched the complainant directly on the skin outside and near her vagina when she was 5 years old, that the touch was sexual within s 61HB of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), and that each element of s 66DA(a) was proved. The complainant's account was detailed, consistent on the central allegation, not embellished, and corroborated on surrounding circumstances and complaint evidence. The evidence of Ms Bright, Ms Hughes and Mr Murphy was found implausible, manufactured or unreliable insofar as it sought to eliminate opportunity, and did not raise a reasonable doubt.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Sexual Touching of a Child Under 10 Contrary to S 66 Da(a) Crimes Act 1900 (nsw) / Hearing After Plea of Not Guilty; Verdict and Conviction Entered; Proceedings Adjourned for Sentence
Outcome
Guilty verdict entered; Mr Murphy convicted; proceedings adjourned for sentence.
Legal Topics
['sexual Touching of Child Under 10' 'proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt' 'single Witness Evidence' 'murray Direction' 'liberato Direction' 'complainant Evidence in Sexual Offence Proceedings' 'delay or Absence of Complaint']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'sexual Offences'] ['sexual Touching of Child Under 10' 'proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt' 'single Witness Evidence' 'murray Direction' 'liberato Direction' 'complainant Evidence in Sexual Offence Proceedings' 'delay or Absence of Complaint']

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 Prosecution for Sexual Touching of a Child Under 10 Contrary to S 66 Da(a) Crimes Act 1900 (nsw) / Hearing After Plea of Not Guilty; Verdict and Conviction Entered; Proceedings Adjourned for Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Murphy intentionally touched the complainant in the manner described by her evidence.' 'Whether the touching was sexual touching within the meaning of s 61HB of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).' 'Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant was under 10 years old at the relevant time.' "Whether the complainant's evidence was sufficiently honest, credible and reliable to support conviction despite the case depending substantially on a single witness." 'Whether the evidence of Mr Murphy, Ms Bright and Ms Hughes raised a reasonable doubt.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Murphy intentionally touched the complainant directly on the skin outside and near her vagina when she was 5 years old, that the touch was sexual within s 61HB of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), and that each element of s 66DA(a) was proved. The complainant's account was detailed, consistent on the central allegation, not embellished, and corroborated on surrounding circumstances and complaint evidence. The evidence of Ms Bright, Ms Hughes and Mr Murphy was found implausible, manufactured or unreliable insofar as it sought to eliminate opportunity, and did not raise a reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

Guilty verdict entered; Mr Murphy convicted; proceedings adjourned for sentence.

Orders

  • ["I find each of the elements of the offence proved beyond reasonable doubt and enter a verdict of 'guilty'." 'Mr Murphy is convicted of the offence.' 'The proceedings are adjourned for sentence.']