R v Aruop - [2016] SADC 109

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v ARUOP
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2016] SADC 109
Reasons for the Verdict of Her Honour Judge Davison
2 September 2016
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - INDECENT ASSAULT AND RELATED OFFENCES
The accused is charged with one count of aggravated indecent assault. It is alleged that he indecently assaulted the 13 year old daughter of a family friend. Issues of reliability of the complainant's account arose.
Verdict: Not guilty.
Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 34; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 56, referred to.
R v J, JA (2009) 105 SASR 563, considered.

R v ARUOP
[2016] SADC 109

Bith Mabuac Aruop is charged with one offence that is alleged to have been committed against the 13 year old complainant, DM, who is the daughter of his friend SK. It is alleged that Mr Aruop went to the complainant’s family home on the afternoon of 2 April 2015. Later that day the accused drove the complainant to her soccer training at West Lakes Shore. Once training had finished the accused and the complainant drove to Arndale shopping centre to pick up the complainant’s sister, MS, from work. On this drive it is alleged that the accused rubbed DM’s upper thigh, on top of her shorts and on her skin, and rubbed her upper back, on top of her shirt. The allegation of the touch to the leg is the subject of the charge.
Mr Aruop pleaded not guilty to the charge of Aggravated Indecent Assault and elected for trial by judge alone. The trial proceeded without a jury.
Charge
The accused is charged with the following offence:
Statement of Offence
Aggravated Indecent Assault. (Section 56 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Bith Aruop on the 2nd day of April 2015, at West Lakes Shore, indecently assaulted, DM, by stroking her thigh.
It is further alleged that at the time of the offence DM was under the age of 14 years.
General directions
I have directed myself as follows.
The prosecution bears the onus of proving the guilt of the accused at all times. The accused does not have to prove that he did not commit the offence charged. An accused person is presumed innocent of the charge unless and until guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. The accused cannot be found guilty of the offence unless the evidence I accept satisfies me beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt. In these reasons if or when I use the words “proved,” “established,” or “satisfied,” in each case, I mean to an extent which excludes a reasonable doubt.
If the evidence I accept fails to satisfy me beyond reasonable doubt on any or all of the elements of the offence under consideration, then the accused remains innocent and I must return a verdict of not guilty.
If I am satisfied that…

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 R v Aruop

Details

AGLC: R v Aruop [2016] SADC 109
Case: [2016] SADC 109
Decision Date: 2 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Aruop, the defendant was charged with an indecent assault against a minor. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The incident in question involved the defendant engaging in inappropriate physical contact with a child under the age of 16, leading to criminal charges being laid against him.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had committed the offence of indecent assault. The court had to consider the elements of the offence, including the nature of the act, the age of the victim, and the intent of the defendant. Additionally, the court needed to assess the credibility of the victim's testimony and any other evidence presented.

The court meticulously examined the evidence provided, including the victim's testimony, any witness statements, and any other relevant material. The judge found that the prosecution had met the burden of proof required to establish the offence of indecent assault. The court concluded that the defendant's actions were deliberate and inappropriate, and that they constituted an assault of an indecent nature against a minor. Consequently, the defendant was found guilty.

The court then proceeded to sentence the defendant, taking into account the seriousness of the offence and the impact on the victim. The final orders included a custodial sentence, along with any other relevant legal requirements such as registration on a sex offenders' register.

Orders