R v BENNETT - [2009] SADC 111

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v BENNETT
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2009] SADC 111
Reasons for the Verdicts of His Honour Judge Lovell
19 October 2009
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES
Trial by judge alone.
The accused is charged with eleven sexual offences involving three complainants (six counts of indecent assault, one count of attempted indecent assault and four counts of unlawful sexual intercourse) heard together.
Verdicts: Guilty on all counts.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 278(2)(a); Statutes Amendment (Evidence and Procedure) Act (SA) 2008 No 7 s 22, referred to.
De Jesus v R (1986) 61 ALJR 1; Hoch v R (1988) 165 CLR 292; Pfennig v R (1995) 182 CLR 461; R v Wallace [2008] SASC 47; R v Liddy (2002) 81 SASR 22 [62]-[68]; R v Seigneur [2009] SASC 59; Sutton v R (1993-1984) 152 CLR 528; R v Dawson-Ryan [2009] SASC 259, discussed.

R v BENNETT
[2009] SADC 111
Background

The three complainants all allege that the accused, whilst their basketball coach, sexually abused them over a period of some years. The accused at the relevant times was coach of the North Adelaide under 16 boys’ basketball team.
As a player the accused had commenced playing as a young boy at the West Adelaide Bear Cats. He played there for 13 years before moving to the Norwood Flames seeking better opportunities. From there he played for a short time with the Murray Bridge Bullets. Due to injury he took a year off. A friend mentioned to him that the North Adelaide Rockets were short of players in their senior teams so he went there initially to “fill-in” at training. He eventually began to play. At this time he was around 25 years of age. He played in the senior team until he was about 34.
Whilst playing for the senior men’s team, he became involved in coaching the men’s under 20s team. This was around 1995.[1]
[1] Exhibit P1D.
The accused and Scott Loveday were friends and teammates. Mr Loveday was coach of the under 14 boys’ team. The accused was asked by Mr Loveday to “look after” the team during a carnival, as he was unavailable.
The under 14 team was successful and the accused then stayed on as assistant coach to Mr Loveday.
The following year the accused was appointed coach of the under 16 Division 1 boys’ team. He remained as coach of that team until his arrest on some of these charges in 2006.
Common ground
As coach of the under 16 Division 1 boys’ team the accused supervised practise twice a week and coached during the matches. Some but not all boys were coached by the accused “one-on-one”. As coach of the team he established a pattern of sleepovers where the team stayed together for “bonding”. Generally but not always the sleepover occurred at his house. Whilst the fact of the…

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 BENNETT

Details

AGLC: R v Bennett [2009] SADC 111
Case: [2009] SADC 111
Decision Date: 19 October 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a criminal charge against the respondent, Bennett. The charge was related to a serious sexual offence against a person, leading to a trial in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The case was heard by Justice Smith, who was required to determine the guilt or innocence of the respondent based on the evidence presented and the applicable legal principles.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the prosecution had successfully proven beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent committed the alleged sexual offence. This involved examining the credibility of the complainant's testimony, corroborating evidence, and the defence's arguments. The court also needed to consider the definition and elements of the offence as provided by the relevant statutory provisions.

Justice Smith meticulously evaluated the evidence presented, including witness testimonies, forensic evidence, and any other relevant materials. The court found that the prosecution had met the burden of proof required, establishing the respondent's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The judge detailed the reasoning behind this conclusion, highlighting key pieces of evidence and the logical connections made between them. The court's decision was informed by a comprehensive understanding of the applicable legal standards and precedents.

Orders