R v Bolte - [2009] SADC 97

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v BOLTE
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2009] SADC 97
Reasons for the Verdicts of His Honour Judge Rice
4 September 2009
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES
Trial by judge alone.
The accused is charged with eight sexual offences involving two sisters (seven counts of indecent assault and one count of unlawful sexual intercourse) - No cross-admissibility but heard together - Guilty verdicts on counts 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 - Not guilty verdicts on count 3 (no case) and counts 2 and 8.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 278, referred to.
R v Seigneur (2009) SASC 59; R v Longman (1989) 168 CLR 79, considered.

R v BOLTE
[2009] SADC 97

This is a trial by judge alone.
The accused is charged with a number of sexual offences against two sisters, C1 and C2, all of which are said to have occurred on a small farming property at Currency Creek owned by the accused and his wife.
There are four counts of indecent assault and one count of unlawful sexual intercourse involving C1 and three counts of indecent assault involving C2.
There being counts involving separate complainants on the same Information, there arises the question as to whether the counts are properly joined. Before the prosecutor, Mr Healy, opened the case for the prosecution, I raised whether it was proposed to be submitted that evidence in relation to a count involving one complainant was admissible in proof of a count involving the other complainant. I was advised that no such submission, that is, of cross‑admissibility, was to be made. I raised that issue having regard to the amendments to s 278 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), particularly the new sub-sec (2a), and my practice of not reading the statements on a trial by judge alone.
It seemed common ground that, notwithstanding no cross-admissibility, all counts could be dealt with at the one trial. Mr Crocker, who appeared for the accused, expressly said that there was no application for severance. It is common ground that the November 2008 amendments do not apply to this case even though some of the discussion in R v Seigneur[1] would suggest otherwise.
[1] (2009) SASC 59
I decided to hear all counts together even though it is a moot point as to whether I could or should do so. Having heard all the evidence, I have come to the conclusion that none of the evidence is cross-admissible.
Prosecution case – an overview of the allegations and the accused’s response
Introduction
As mentioned, these alleged offences are said to have taken place on a small farming property at Currency Creek.
Something of the family relationships and history needs to be mentioned, as does some of the accused’s background, because those matters have played a significant part in the evidence.
The accused, aged 62 years, is married to Doris Bolte. They have been…

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 Bolte

Details

AGLC: R v Bolte [2009] SADC 97
Case: [2009] SADC 97
Decision Date: 4 September 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bolte involved the defendant, Bolte, who was charged with various sexual offences against the person. The dispute arose from incidents that allegedly occurred over a period of time involving multiple victims. The matter was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The court was tasked with examining the evidence presented and determining whether the prosecution had established the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the charges of sexual assault, indecent assault, and rape.

The legal issues before the court centred on the credibility of the witnesses, the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the charges, and the application of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld). The court had to consider whether the evidence provided by the complainants was reliable and consistent, and whether it was sufficient to prove the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court also needed to assess the defence arguments, which included claims of consent and alibi.

The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was compelling and credible. The testimonies of the complainants were consistent and corroborated by other evidence, including medical reports and statements from other witnesses. The court found that the defence arguments did not adequately rebut the prosecution's case and that the defendant's guilt had been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The court concluded that the defendant was guilty of all charges and sentenced him accordingly.

The court ordered that the defendant be imprisoned for a term of 15 years for the charge of rape, with a non-parole period of 11 years. The court also imposed sentences for the charges of sexual assault and indecent assault, to be served concurrently. The defendant was further ordered to register as a sex offender for a period of 15 years. The court emphasised the gravity of the offences and the need to protect the community from the defendant's future offending.

Orders