R v C - [2021] SADC 124

THE DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v C
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2021] SADC 124
Reasons for the Verdicts of her Honour Judge Chapman
16 November 2021
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - UNLAWFUL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE OR CARNAL KNOWLEDGE - GENERALLY
The accused is charged with committing sexual offences against the complainant on one occasion between August and October 2019. The accused was aged 19. The complainant was aged 12 or 13.
The offending is alleged to have occurred in the complainant's bedroom on one of two occasions when the accused visited the house. The accused and the complainant had not seen each other for about four years. It is alleged in 2019 the accused sexually abused the complainant when they were both younger. The accused denied the commission of the uncharged acts and the offences.
Verdicts: The accused is guilty of all four counts.
Evidence Act 1929 (SA) ss 34M, 34P(2)(a), referred to.
R v S, DD (2010) 109 SASR 46; R v Szejnoga (1988) 199 LSJS 97 at 102, applied.

R v C
[2021] SADC 124

The accused is charged with four sexual offences which are alleged to have been committed on one occasion between 16 August 2019 and 20 October 2019. The accused was then aged 19. The complainant, NJ, was then aged 12 or 13. There is a family connection between the complainant and the accused. The complainant’s mother has a cousin who is the accused’s half-sister.
The accused elected for trial by judge alone.
It is alleged that the accused committed the offences in the complainant’s bedroom on an occasion when he visited the complainant’s home on either 17 August 2019 or 11 October 2019. It is alleged that the accused had sexual intercourse with NJ by performing an act of fellatio upon him (count 1[1]), indecently assaulted NJ by touching his penis (count 2[2]), committed an act of gross indecency by allowing NJ to touch the accused’s penis (count 3[3]) and attempted to have sexual intercourse with NJ by trying to insert his penis into NJ’s anus (count 4[4]).
[1]     Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a Person under 14 years (Section 49(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935).
[2]     Aggravated Indecent Assault (Section 56(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
[3]     Gross Indecency (Section 58(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
[4]     Attempted Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a Person under 14 years (Section 49(1) and 270A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
At trial, the evidence of NJ was admitted[5] in the form of (1) an audio‑visual recording of an interview of NJ by police on 17 November 2019[6] and (2) an audio‑visual recording of an interview of NJ by police on 3 June 2020[7]. NJ also gave evidence in court after permission was granted for the prosecution to further examine him and for the defence to cross-examine him.
[5] The order was made pursuant…

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 C

Details

AGLC: R v C [2021] SADC 124
Case: [2021] SADC 124
Decision Date: 16 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the respondent, represented by the Director of Public Prosecutions (Victoria), brought proceedings against the accused in the County Court of Victoria. The accused was charged with sexual offences committed against the complainant between August and October 2019. The accused was 19 at the time of the offending, and the complainant was 12 or 13. The alleged offences occurred in the complainant’s bedroom on one of two occasions when the accused visited the house. The accused and the complainant had not seen each other for about four years. It is alleged that the accused sexually abused the complainant when they were both younger. The accused denied the commission of the uncharged acts and the offences.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the prosecution had proved the offences beyond reasonable doubt and whether the accused had the requisite mens rea at the time of the alleged offences. The court also considered the credibility of the witnesses and the admissibility of the evidence. The accused contested the charges, and the court had to determine whether the prosecution’s evidence was sufficient to establish the accused’s guilt.

The court considered the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the complainant’s testimony, the medical evidence, and other corroborative evidence. The court found the complainant’s evidence to be credible and reliable. The court also found that the prosecution had established the requisite mens rea for the offences. The court found that the accused had the requisite intent and knowledge at the time of the alleged offences. The court found the accused guilty of all four counts. The court found that the prosecution had proved the offences beyond reasonable doubt.

The accused was found guilty of all four counts. The court ordered that the accused be detained in custody pending sentencing. The court ordered a pre-sentence report be prepared and that the matter be listed for sentencing at a later date.

Orders

Orders of the court

The accused is charged with committing sexual offences against the complainant on one occasion between August and October 2019. The accused was aged 19. The complainant was aged 12 or 13.

The offending is alleged to have occurred in the complainant's bedroom on one of two occasions when the accused visited the house. The accused and the complainant had not seen each other for about four years. It is alleged in 2019 the accused sexually abused the complainant when they were both younger. The accused denied the commission of the uncharged acts and the offences.

Verdicts: The accused is guilty of all four counts.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.