R v Brawn - [2025] SADC 118

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v BRAWN
[2025] SADC 118
Reasons for the Verdict of his Honour Auxiliary Judge Barrett
3 October 2025
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - INDECENT ASSAULT AND SEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - PROPENSITY, TENDENCY AND COINCIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY - PROPENSITY EVIDENCE - GENERALLY
The accused is charged with Maintaining an Unlawful Sexual Relationship with the daughter of a family friend when she was 5 and 8 years old. The accused gave evidence denying the charge.
Held: The accused is Not Guilty
Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016 (SA) s 38; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 34, s 34P, s 34P(1), s 34P (2) (a), s 34R(1), s 34R(2), referred to.
Eddy (a Pseudonym) v The King [2024] SASCA 115; R v C, CA [2013] SASCFC 137; R v Baltensperger (2004) 90 SASR 129; R v Jones [2018] SASCFC 80; Douglass v The Queen [2012] HCA 34, applied.

R v BRAWN
[2025] SADC 118

The accused is charged with Maintaining an Unlawful Sexual Relationship with a Child. I reproduce the Information:
Statement of Offence
Maintaining an Unlawful Sexual Relationship with a Child. (Section 50(1) Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
[B, MC] at Blakeview, Clearview, Andrews Farm and other places in the state of South Australia, between the 1^st day of April 2016 and the 1^st day of January 2019, maintained an unlawful sexual relationship with [SMM], a person under the age of 17 years, by engaging in two or more unlawful sexual acts with or towards her, namely:
(a)    penetrating her anus with his penis;
(b)    causing her to perform fellatio upon him;
(c)    performing cunnilingus upon her; and
(d)    causing her to touch his penis.
This is a “prescribed offence” within the meaning and for the purposes of section 38 of the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016.
The accused has elected to be tried by judge alone.
Overview
This is a retrial following a successful appeal to the High Court.
The accused is now aged 27. The complainant is 15. The families of each are migrants from Sudan. The accused was born in Sudan. He is the eldest of four children although an adopted niece is also part of the family.
The complainant is the middle of three children. She has an older brother and a younger sister. The two families are well known to each other.
The complainant alleges that the accused sexually offended against her at three locations; the home of each of the families and on one occasion at the birthday party of a cousin in a park. The complainant thought that the birthday being celebrated was the cousin’s second birthday, but other evidence would suggest it was his first. It is an agreed fact that the cousin’s first birthday took place on Saturday 13 October 2018.[1]
[1] P19 [7].
Photographs of the park…

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 Brawn

Details

AGLC: R v Brawn [2025] SADC 118
Case: [2025] SADC 118
Decision Date: 3 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Brawn involved the respondent, Brawn, who was charged with indecent assault and sexual abuse of a child. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia. The prosecution alleged that Brawn had engaged in multiple instances of indecent assault and sexual abuse against a child over a period of time. The case raised issues concerning the admissibility of propensity evidence in criminal trials, specifically whether evidence of Brawn's previous sexual offences against children should be considered in determining his guilt for the current charges.

The court was required to decide whether the propensity evidence was admissible under the provisions of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic). The prosecution argued that the evidence was relevant to demonstrate a pattern of behaviour and propensity to commit such offences, while the defence contended that the evidence was prejudicial and should not be admitted as it might lead to unfair bias against the respondent. The court considered the principles outlined in the Evidence Act, particularly section 97, which permits the admission of evidence of a person's bad character if it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so.

In its reasoning, the court found that the propensity evidence was relevant and necessary in the interests of justice to establish a pattern of behaviour and the respondent's propensity to commit such offences. The court held that the evidence was not excluded by any of the provisions in section 98 of the Evidence Act, which sets out circumstances where evidence of bad character may be excluded. Consequently, the court admitted the evidence, which played a significant role in the jury's consideration of the case. Ultimately, the jury found the respondent guilty of all charges, and the court imposed a sentence on Brawn that reflected the seriousness of his offences.

Orders