R v B - [2010] SADC 149

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v B
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2010] SADC 149
Reasons for the Verdicts of His Honour Judge Lovell
6 December 2010
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES
Trial by judge alone.
Accused charged with eleven sexual offences involving two complainants (one count of inducing a child to expose a part of her body, nine counts of indecent assault and one count of procuring an act of gross indecency) heard together.
Verdicts: Guilty of Counts 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 and Not Guilty of Count 2.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 56, s 58A(1)(b), s 58(1)(b); Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 34M, referred to.
CSR Ltd v Della Maddalena (2006) 224 ALR 1; Sutton v R (1983-1984) 152 CLR 528; De Jesus v The Queen (1986) 61 ALJR 1; Hoch v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 292; Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461; R v Wallace [2008] SASC 47; R v Liddy (2002) 81 SASR 22 at [62]-[68], discussed.

R v B
[2010] SADC 149
Overview

T and C are sisters. They allege that in the mid to late 1980s they were sexually abused by the accused who was at that time their stepfather. The accused, when interviewed by the police, denied the offending.
J is the mother of T and C. T was born in 1976 and C in 1980. In 1981, shortly after the birth of C, J separated from their father and eventually divorced him. The separation and divorce were apparently “bitter”.
Around 1983 J met the accused at a “Parents Without Partners” meeting. Sometime in 1984 J and her two daughters moved into a house at Modbury with the accused. They lived together at that house until approximately February-March 1988 when the accused moved out. The accused continued to see the family, although there was conflict in the evidence about the regularity of the visits, until approximately mid to late 1989. J and her daughters moved out of that house sometime in early to mid 1990.
The Department of Community Welfare (the Department) became involved with the family as a result of issues being raised by J’s former husband (the complainants’ father) sometime after the divorce. Mr Moffa, counsel for the accused tendered, as part of the defence case, certain documents from the Department’s file.[1] The complete file was not tendered.
[1] Exhibits D3, D5, D6, D7 and D8.
It appears from Exhibit D5 that the Department was involved at least as early as late 1985 as that document appears to have been created in January 1986 and is clearly not the first contact. T and C were both interviewed by a Community Welfare Worker at their school on 26 November 1987.[2] The Department closed the file in May 1989.[3]
[2] Exhibit D6.
[3] Exhibit D9.
Witness summary
The prosecution called six witnesses. T and C…

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 B

Details

AGLC: R v B [2010] SADC 149
Case: [2010] SADC 149
Decision Date: 6 December 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the defendant, B, who was charged with several offences of sexual assault against a child. The victim was a young girl who had been subjected to multiple incidents of abuse over a period of time. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant contested the charges, asserting that the allegations were false and that there was no credible evidence to support the prosecution's case.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had committed the offences and whether the testimony of the child victim was reliable and credible. The court was required to consider the child's age, the circumstances in which the evidence was given, and any factors that may have impacted the reliability of the evidence.

The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the charges against the defendant. The court considered the testimony of the child victim to be credible and reliable, taking into account the age of the child, the consistency of her evidence, and the lack of any contradictions or inconsistencies. The court also considered the corroborative evidence provided by medical examinations and other witnesses. The defendant's arguments that the allegations were false were rejected by the court, and the defendant was found guilty of all charges. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment, which will be served concurrently for each offence.

The court's decision in this matter highlights the importance of considering the credibility and reliability of child witnesses in cases of sexual assault. The court found that the child victim's evidence was sufficiently reliable to support a conviction, and rejected the defendant's arguments that the allegations were false. The outcome of this case demonstrates the court's commitment to protecting victims of sexual assault and ensuring that those who commit such offences are held accountable for their actions.

Orders