Over Mt Isa way, recently appointed judge HH Chris Kahler DJC has been given a tongue-lashing by the Queensland Court of Appeal for his handling of a sexual assault trial in the Childrens Court.
Kahler had been appointed to the bench in May 2025, as part of the Chrisafulli Government’s Faster Justice Plan. His appointment bolstered the number of permanent District Court Judges in Townsville to three.
Kahler’s appointment follows a legal career in Innisfail spanning 20 years, and significant community involvement, including the Anglican Diocese of North Queensland and the Young Nationals, of which he was president from 2004 to 2006.
His law shop handled criminal defence, traffic matters and civil litigation.
In the same month as his appointment to the dizzo, Kahler was also appointed a judge of the Childrens Court of Queensland.
In October 2025, HH presided over a sexual assault trial in the Mt Isa Childrens Court. The accused faced 11 charges relating to events which the complainant alleges took place during, and after, a dance held at the Mt Isa rodeo grounds.
At first instance he was found by the jury guilty of rape, recording the complainant in breach of her privacy whilst she was getting dressed, and distributing that recording (counts 7, 10 and 11 respectively).
He was acquitted on a number of other charges.
The findings on courts 7, 10 and 11 were unanimously overturned by the Queensland Court of Appeal due to a miscarriage of justice, and the matter remitted for further consideration.
One of the successful grounds of appeal concerned the unusual sitting hours of the jury, particularly towards the end of the trial.
From the outset, the jury was advised that their sitting hours would be from 9.30 am to 4.30 pm, with a one-hour break between 1 and 2 pm. The appeal court noted that these hours are already one hour per day longer than usual.
However, the actual sitting hours for the jury turned out to be quite different, as the five-day-long hearing was punctuated by many adjournments. The final day of trial was especially truncated.
The jury had been dismissed by 2 pm the day before, so that Kahler DJC could prepare his summing up. This was then sent as a draft to the parties later that evening.
When the trial resumed the following morning at 8.30 am, the trial was largely dedicated to hearing submissions on HH’s draft summing up. This in itself, was subject to criticism by the court of appeal, which noted that whilst the parties can provide submissions on a summing up, it remains the responsibility of the judge to draft and finalise.
By 3.40 pm closing submissions had still not been delivered. Undoubtedly aware of the fast approaching weekend, and possibly feeling under pressure due to the end of the scheduled circuit, and the time-sensitive nature of the Childrens Court, Kahler at this point asked the parties whether they were “in a position to sit through tonight”.
The court of appeal found that although the jury was not consulted, and nor did the parties provide an explicit response, HH plainly adopted this course of conduct anyway.
However, shortly before closing submissions began, two jurors sent through requests to the court. One asked if they could “please be let out for a smoke”, and the other said, “I have a test due tonight, and will appreciate if I can be released early for it”.
Whilst the smoke break was granted, the request to leave early for the test was refused, HH stating that “[t]here is a legal requirement for each member of the jury to serve on the panel for as long as I require and until you’re excused”.
Closing addresses finally began at 4 pm, finishing up at 8.20 pm, after which the jury retired to consider their verdicts.
At 9.20 pm, the jury were brought back into court, and asked whether they would prefer to continue sitting that evening, or return the following morning, which was a Saturday.
One juror replied, “Tomorrow. Tomorrow”.
The jurors deliberated most of Saturday, finally reaching their verdict at around 3 pm.
In considering whether these irregularities amounted to a miscarriage of justice, the Court of Appeal noted that it is fundamental that the jury must be free to deliberate issues, without any pressure.
While Judge Kahler did not expressly pressure the jury to decide one way or another, the court accepted the accused’s argument that the timing of events presented a real risk of the jury feeling pressured to deliver a verdict.
In particular, the court noted that “even the highest functioning person could not be expected to concentrate” in circumstances where, after an already truncated five-day trial, closing addresses began at 4 pm on a Friday afternoon.
The fact that the jurors had not been offered dinner, and nor did they have the opportunity to eat anything that might have been otherwise sourced, was also relevant.
Consequently, the appeal court found that the jury was under implicit, if not express, pressure to decide, thus breaching the fundamental rule of freedom to deliberate.
A further successful appeal ground related to Kahler DCJ’s idiosyncratic summing up.
Not only was the trial delayed so that HH could prepare his summing up, but he also appeared to invert the usual order of things, in a stark departure from the Supreme and District Court Criminal Directions Benchbook.
Rather than start his summary with a high-level explanation of fundamental legal principles such as the functions of judge and jury, HH dived straight into discussing the Crown’s particulars and the relevant evidence for each count.
The evidence was further presented as statements of fact, leading the Court of Appeal to describe his approach as “confusing, to say the least”.
Concerningly, the appeal court found that this appeared to be standard practice for Judge Kahler as in response to a question from counsel during trial, HH stated he had used a similar structure “multiple times previously without any issue or objections”.
A further argument raised by the appellant, that the jury’s conclusion of guilty was inconsistent with the other acquittals granted, was rejected.
Thus, as wryly noted by the Court of Appeal, HH’s unorthodox attempt to finalise the trial by pushing it into Friday night and over the weekend has ultimately resulted in far greater delay in the long run.