Ferris (a pseudonym) v The King - [2025] SASCA 62

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Appeal: Criminal)
FERRIS (A PSEUDONYM) v THE KING
[2025] SASCA 62
Judgment of the Court of Appeal
(The Honourable President Livesey, the Honourable Justice Bleby and the Honourable Justice David)
5 June 2025
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - RIGHT OF APPEAL - WHEN APPEAL LIES - ERROR OF LAW - PARTICULAR CASES INVOLVING ERROR OF LAW - FAILURE TO GIVE REASONS FOR DECISION - ADEQUACY OF REASONS
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - MAINTAINING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH CHILD AND PERSISTENT SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILD
Following a trial by judge alone, the appellant was found guilty of the offence of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child contrary to s 50(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA).
The prosecution alleged that the appellant engaged in unlawful sexual acts with the complainant when she was between 13 and 17 years of age. The appellant and the complainant subsequently married when she was 24 years of age and had one child together. The prosecution case relied primarily on the complainant’s evidence, as supported by the evidence of family members and associates as to the nature of the relationship. There was also evidence of a text message sent by the appellant to his brother allegedly containing an admission.
The defence case was that the appellant’s sexual relationship with the complainant did not commence until she was 21 years of age. The appellant gave evidence at trial, and also called evidence from various members of his family. There was also documentary evidence tendered as part of the defence case which purportedly provided an alibi for an alleged act of sexual intercourse.
The trial Judge found the complainant’s evidence to be logical, credible and convincing. The trial Judge rejected the appellant’s evidence, and found the offence proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The appellant seeks permission to appeal against his conviction on eight grounds. Grounds 1 and 2 relate to the trial Judge’s conduct of the trial; Grounds 3, 4 and 6 relate to the trial Judge’s failure to give various directions as part of his reasons for verdict; Ground 5 relates to the trial Judge’s failure to provide adequate reasons for his verdict; Ground 7 relates to an application for the receipt of fresh evidence; and Ground 8 complains that the verdict is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.
Held, per the Court, granting permission to appeal on Grounds 5 and 8, allowing the appeal on Ground 5, but dismissing Ground 8:
1.The trial Judge failed to bring to account various aspect of the evidence called, or tendered, as part of the defence case when assessing the credibility and reliability of the complainant’s evidence. The cumulative effect was such that the trial Judge did not provide adequate reasons for accepting the complainant’s account and…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Ferris (a pseudonym) v The King

Details

AGLC: Ferris (a pseudonym) v The King [2025] SASCA 62
Case: [2025] SASCA 62
Decision Date: 5 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned a conviction for maintaining a sexual relationship with a child and persistent sexual abuse of a child. The appellant, referred to as Ferris, appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of South Australia, arguing that the trial judge's reasons for conviction were inadequate.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the trial judge's reasons for verdict were sufficient, particularly in light of contested evidence regarding a queen-size bed and the ownership of a laptop. The appellant contended that the judge's failure to adequately address these discrepancies rendered the reasons inadequate, thereby constituting an error of law.

The Court reiterated the well-established principles regarding the adequacy of reasons in a judge-alone trial. A judge must provide reasons that clearly identify the legal principles applied and the primary factual findings underpinning the verdict, enabling appellate review and public accountability. While a judge is not required to address every contested matter, a failure to explain a significant factual or evidential dispute that is a necessary step in reaching the ultimate conclusion will generally render the reasons inadequate. The Court noted that the adequacy of reasons is assessed by considering the issues in the case, their reliance by counsel, their bearing on the elements of the offence, and their significance to the trial. In this instance, the Court considered whether the disputed evidence concerning the bed and laptop was sufficiently material to require detailed resolution in the judge's reasons.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

By contrast, the respondent submits that it was not essential to resolve the contradictory evidence as to the queen size bed and the laptop in order to accept or reject the complainant’s account. Accordingly, a failure to do so does not render his reasons inadequate. More specifically, the fact the complainant may have been mistaken about the size of the bed in the appellant’s bedroom does not materially affect her credibility or reliability. As to the purchase of a laptop in 2006, the respondent submits this does not prove the appellant did not own a laptop prior to that time, and as such, the evidence did not undermine the complainant’s account in a material way.Consideration The principles relevant to a complaint of inadequate reasons are well known and have been repeatedly stated by this Court.[35] A trial judge when hearing a trial without a jury is obliged to provide reasons which sufficiently identify the principles of law applied by the judge and the main factual findings relied upon when reaching a verdict. This allows an appellate court to discharge its statutory function on appeal and to facilitate public accountability of judicial decision‑making.[36] A failure to explain a significant factual or evidential dispute which is a necessary step in reaching the ultimate conclusion will usually render reasons inadequate.[37] [35] See, for example, Boyle (a pseudonym) v The Queen (2022) 299 A Crim R 92; Sondhi v The King [2024] SASCA 7; Bowen (a pseudonym) v The King [2025] SASCA 36 at [30]-[39] (Livesey P, S Doyle and David JJA). [36] Bowen (a Pseudonym v The King [2025] SASCA 36 at [30] (Livesey P, S Doyle and David JJA); JGS v The Queen [2020] SASCFC 48 at [204] (Lovell J, Peek and Bampton JJ agreeing).[37] DL v The Queen (2018) 266 CLR 1 at [33] (Kiefel CJ, Keane and Edelman JJ). A judge however is not required to address in detail every contested matter, particularly if the matters are peripheral to the key issues at trial.[38] As the High Court in DL v The Queen explained:[39] ... Not every failure to resolve a dispute will render reasons for decision inadequate to justify a verdict. At one extreme, reasons for decision will not be inadequate merely because they fail to address an irrelevant dispute or one which is peripheral to the real issues. Nor will they be inadequate merely because they fail to undertake “a minute explanation of every step in the reasoning process that leads to the judge’s conclusion”. At the other extreme, reasons will often be inadequate if the trial judge fails to explain his or her conclusion on a significant factual or evidential dispute that is a necessary step to the final conclusion. In between these extremes, the adequacy of reasons will depend upon an assessment of the issues in the case, including the extent to which they were relied upon by counsel, their bearing upon the elements of the offence, and their significance to the course of the trial. In particular: “Ordinarily it would be necessary for a trial judge to summarise the crucial arguments of the parties, to formulate the issues for decision, to resolve any issues of law and fact which needed to be determined before the verdict could be arrived at, in the course of that resolution to explain how competing arguments of the parties were to be dealt with and why the resolution arrived at was arrived at, to apply the law found to the facts found, and to explain how the verdict followed.”(Citations omitted.)[38] Bowen (a pseudonym) v The King [2025] SASCA 36 at [31] (Livesey P, S Doyle and David JJA); R v Sexton [2018] SASCFC 28 at [179] (Kourakis CJ, Peek and Nicholson JJ agreeing).[39] DL v The Queen (2018) 266 CLR 1 at [33] (Kiefel CJ, Keane and Edelman JJ).