Legal Research
Cases
R v Ayles

R v Ayles

Case [2006] SADC 67 16 June 2006

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v AYLES
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2006] SADC 67
Reasons for the Verdict of Her Honour Judge Simpson
16 June 2006
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - OTHER OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - BUGGERY AND INDECENT ASSAULT OR DEALING - GENERALLY
The accused was charged with six counts of indecent assault and two of buggery - accused pleaded guilty to two counts of indecent assault and not guilty to four counts of indecent assault and two of buggery - whether specification of date or range of dates in particulars material to charges - whether intervening abolition of offence of buggery affects prosecution - whether victim presumed incapable of sexual intercourse per anum - whether accomplice warning in respect of charges of buggery required - whether element of assault made out in two charges of indecent assault - delay of over 30 years in prosecution of charges - careful scrutiny of evidence required: Verdicts: guilty on count 1; not guilty on counts 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Evidence Act 1929 ss 34I(5), 34I(6a); Acts Interpretation Act 1915 s 16; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 ss 69, 290, referred to.
R v Pfitzner (1976) 15 SASR 171; Johnson v Miller (1937) 59 CLR 467; R v Liddy (2002) 81 SASR 22; R v Warren [1971] SASR 316; Page v Butcher [1957] SASR 165; R v Doyle [1957] SASR 182; Faulkner v Talbot [1981] 3 All ER 468; DPP v Rogers [1953] 2 All ER 644; Fitzgerald v Kennard (1995) 38 NSWLR 184; Pritchard (1999) 107 A Cr R 88; R v Nieterink (1999) 76 SASR 56; Longman (1989) 168 CLR 79, applied.
Ware (1994) 73 A Crim R 17; R v Packer [1932] VLR 225; R v Moody (1897) QCR 344; R v Philips (1839) 8 Car & P 736, 173 ER 695; R v Waite [1892] 2 QB 600; R v Williams [1893] 1 QB 320; 1 Hale PC 670; R v Eldershaw (1828) 3 Car & P 396, 172 ER 472; R v Groombridge (1836) 7 Car & P 582, 173 ER 256; Tatam (1921) 15 Cr App R 132; R v Young [1923] SASR 35; R v M (1977) 16 SASR 589; R v Cratchley (1913) 9 Cr App R 232; R v Rigney (1975) 12 SASR 30; Hargan v R (1919) 27 CLR 13, considered.

R v AYLES
[2006] SADC 67

The accused, Raymond Frederick Ayles, is charged on Information of the 11 April 2005 with the following offences:
First Count
Indecent Assault. (Section 70(1)(c) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act1935)
Particulars of Offence
Raymond Frederick Ayles between the 24^th day of October 1971 and the 2^nd day of May 1972 at Para Hills, indecently assaulted T.
Second Count
Indecent Assault. (Ibid)
Particulars of Offence
Raymond Frederick Ayles between the 24^th day…

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 Ayles

Details

AGLC: R v Ayles [2006] SADC 67
Case: [2006] SADC 67
Decision Date: 16 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ayles involved the accused facing charges of multiple sexual offences, including six counts of indecent assault and two counts of buggery. The accused entered a plea of guilty to two counts of indecent assault, while maintaining a plea of not guilty to the remaining four counts of indecent assault and both counts of buggery. The matter was brought before the court to resolve several legal issues, including the necessity of specifying dates in the particulars of the charges, the impact of the abolition of the offence of buggery on the prosecution, whether the victims were presumed incapable of anal intercourse, the requirement of an accomplice warning for the buggery charges, and whether the element of assault was present in the two counts of indecent assault. Furthermore, the court had to consider the significant delay of over 30 years in prosecuting the charges, necessitating a careful scrutiny of the evidence.

The court examined the necessity of specifying dates or a range of dates in the particulars of the charges. It concluded that while precision in dates is generally important, the overarching context and the victim's capacity to recall specific details over an extended period should also be considered. Regarding the abolition of the offence of buggery, the court ruled that the intervening legislative changes did not affect the prosecution, as the charges were brought within the statute of limitations. The court further deliberated on the presumption of the victims' incapacity for anal intercourse and found that such a presumption was not applicable in this case. Concerning the requirement of an accomplice warning for the buggery charges, the court held that no such warning was necessary as the charges did not involve any alleged accomplice. Additionally, the court determined that the element of assault was indeed present in the two counts of indecent assault.

In conclusion, the court found the accused guilty on one count of indecent assault, while acquitting the accused on the remaining five counts of indecent assault and both counts of buggery. The careful scrutiny of the evidence, considering the long delay in prosecution, was integral in arriving at these verdicts. The final orders of the court reflected the outcomes of the legal issues deliberated upon during the trial.

Orders