Legal Research
Cases
R v Beard

R v Beard

Case [2004] SASC 411 10 December 2004

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v BEARD
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Chief Justice Doyle, The Honourable Justice Perry and The Honourable Justice Vanstone)
10 December 2004
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION
Appeal against conviction - trial by judge alone - convictions for unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under 12 - whether reasoning process flawed - whether adequate reasons given for rejecting the appellant's evidence - whether the verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory - appeal dismissed.
R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68; R v Power (2003) 226 LSJS 337, applied.

R v BEARD
[2004] SASC 411
Court of Criminal Appeal: Doyle CJ, Perry and Vanstone JJ

DOYLE CJ. I would dismiss the appeal against conviction. I agree with the reasons given by Vanstone J. There is nothing that I wish to add to those reasons.
PERRY J. I agree that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by Vanstone J.
VANSTONE J: This is an appeal, with leave, against convictions entered in the District Court for three counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under 12, contrary to section 49(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. The appellant was a family friend of the complainant. The complainant (“V”) was 8 years of age at the time of the conduct, and was 15 years at the time of the trial. The appellant was tried by a judge sitting alone. There was no independent evidence supporting V’s evidence that the offences had occurred. The appellant gave evidence in his defence.
There were four grounds of appeal. Two of those alleged that on two occasions the judge used a reasoning process which commenced with the premise that the appellant was an “opportunistic predator”. Then it was asserted that the judge did not give adequate reasons for rejecting the appellant’s evidence. Finally, the appellant submitted that the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory.
The information on which the appellant was tried contained four offences. The first offence was said by V to have occurred in the water at Glenelg beach on 2 February 1997, when the appellant inserted his finger into her vagina. On that day V and members of her family and the appellant and members of his family, together with two exchange students they were entertaining, travelled from Gawler to Glenelg. The exchange students attended an orientation meeting at Glenelg and during that meeting the appellant took his daughter, the complainant and her two sisters for a swim. Whilst the other children were a little distance away in deeper water, the appellant sat the complainant on his knee and inserted his finger into her vagina.
The other offences were said to have occurred on a Saturday evening in the middle months of the same year. V was to sleep at the appellant’s house on that night. She said that during the evening she was sitting on a sofa watching television with…

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 Beard

Details

AGLC: R v Beard [2004] SASC 411
Case: [2004] SASC 411
Decision Date: 10 December 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Beard, the appellant, Beard, sought to appeal against his convictions for unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under 12. The appeal was centred on the process by which the trial judge arrived at his conclusions, specifically whether the reasoning process was flawed and whether adequate reasons were provided for rejecting the appellant's evidence. The appeal was heard in the relevant appellate court.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the sufficiency of the trial judge's reasoning in convicting the appellant and the necessity for the judge to provide clear and sufficient reasons for rejecting the appellant's testimony. The appellant argued that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory due to the perceived deficiencies in the judge's reasoning. The court needed to determine whether these arguments had merit and whether the appeal should succeed.

The court examined the trial judge's reasoning and concluded that it was neither flawed nor inadequate. The judge had provided sufficient reasons for rejecting the appellant's evidence, and the verdict was therefore safe and satisfactory. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction. The court held that the trial judge's reasoning process was sound, and the reasons given for rejecting the appellant's evidence were adequate. The verdict remained unchallenged, and the appeal was therefore without merit.

Orders