Dreyer v R [2022] NSWDC 190

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Dreyer v R [2022] NSWDC 190 Hearing dates: 26 May 2022 Date of orders: 2 June 2022 Decision date: 02 June 2022 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Scotting DCJ Decision: (1) Appeal dismissed. (2) I confirm the orders of the magistrate. Catchwords: CRIME — Appeal and review — Appeal from Local Court to District Court Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Cases Cited: AG v Director of Public Prosecutions [2015] NSWCA 218 Brown v R [2008] NSWCCA 306 Charara v R [2006] NSWCCA 244 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 Gianoutsas v Glykis [2006] NSWCCA 137 Lumney v Director of Public Prosecutions [2021] NSWCA 186 McNab v Director of Public Prosecutions [2021] NSWCA 298 Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Martin Henry Dreyer Representation: Counsel: P Bolster (Appellant)

Solicitors: ODPP (Prosecutor) Macken and Company (Appellant) File Number(s): 2020/342706 Publication restriction: None

Judgment

Introduction 1. On 23 December 2021, the appellant, Martin Dreyer, was found guilty of one count of inciting sexual touching contrary to s 61KC(b) Crimes Act 1900, and one count of sexual touching contrary to s 61KC(a) Crimes Act 1900, by her Honour Magistrate Hosking. The appellant brings an appeal as of right against each finding of guilt. 2. The appellant and the complainant were acquaintances and their mothers were friends. At about 5.00pm on Wednesday 29 July 2020, they met at the shops at Watsons Bay and decided to go for a walk on the South Head Heritage Trail at Watsons Bay. Between 6.30pm and 8.00pm, the prosecution case was that while seated on a park bench following a sexualised conversation, the appellant took the complainant's hand and placed it on his crotch and then shortly afterwards opened the fly on her jeans, placing his finger inside and rubbing the complainant's body on the outside of her underwear. After the incident, the appellant drove the complainant home. It was common ground that he drove erratically at some point during the journey. When the complainant got home she spoke to her mother about what had occurred. 3. The appellant denied that the acts took place and did not put intent or consent in issue. His evidence was that the complainant expressed sexual interest in him and placed her hand on his leg. He moved away telling her that he did not want a physical relationship.