Case note: R v Green [2025] QCA 148
The recent Queensland Court of Appeal decision R v Green [2025] QCA 148 provides appellate consideration of the meaning of ‘intimidation’ under section 218(1) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld). The decision clarifies that there is no threshold for how substantial an act of intimidation must be, nor is there a requirement that the intimidation involve a threat of physical violence.
Factual Background
The appellant, Mr Green, was a farmer in the South Burnett region of Queensland. The complainant, a 20-year-old British woman, sought employment on the appellant’s farm to satisfy a visa requirement that she complete 88 days of rural work.
The complainant alleged that the appellant repeatedly told her that she was not adequately performing her duties on the farm, and that she would likely be replaced by another international worker. She stated that the appellant told her that if she performed sexual acts for him, he would pay her for her farm work and sign her visa. The complainant testified that she performed sexual acts for the appellant because she was fearful of him and felt as if she “didn’t have anywhere else to go.”
At trial, the appellant was convicted of procuring sexual acts by coercion under section 218(1)(a) of the Queensland Criminal Code. It should be noted that the appellant's convictions were overturned by the Court of Appeal for reasons beyond the scope of this article.
Legal context
Section 218(1)(a) of the Criminal Code states that it is a crime if a person:
- By coercion, procures another person to-
- Engage in a sexual act, either in Queensland or elsewhere.
The act defines ‘coercion’ to include ‘threats or intimidation of any kind.’ Mr Green’s conviction was appealed on the basis that his behaviour towards the complainant could not constitute intimidation.
Decision
Whilst Mr Green’s appeal was allowed on a number of separate grounds, the court rejected the submission that his behaviour could not constitute intimidation. This decision was partially based on the findings of the Court of Appeal in R v Shaw [1995] 2 Qd R 97, 111 in which the meaning of ‘intimidation’ was considered in a charge of rape under section 347 of the Criminal Code.[1] In Shaw, McPherson JA considered that section 218(1)(a) only required that the complainant was induced by intimidation, not that the intimidation was objectively substantial.
The Court accepted that such an interpretation of ‘intimidation’ may allow for objectively minor acts of intimidation to be relied upon. This concern was addressed by recognising that the use of the word ‘procures’ in section 218(1)(a) means that the defendant must have knowingly used intimidation. Therefore, the more minor the alleged act of intimidation, the less likely it is that the defendant would have known about its intimidating effect.
In Mr Green’s case, the court found that the appellant knowingly used intimidation to procure sexual acts from the complainant. This decision was based on the fact that the appellant knew the complainant was in a physically isolated position as she could not voluntarily leave the farm. The appellant was also aware that the complainant would not be able to stay in Australia if he did not continue to support her visa by allowing her to stay. Whilst the appellant did not physically intimidate the complainant, his knowledge of her vulnerable position when threatening to end her employment was enough that the jury could have reasonably concluded that he used intimidation to procure the sexual acts.
[1] Removed in Criminal Law Amendment Act 2000 (Qld).