R v C, E - [2025] SADC 13

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v C, E
[2025] SADC 13
Reasons for the Verdict of her Honour Judge Fuller
19 February 2025
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - SEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD
Accused charged with sexual abuse of a child - offence alleged to have been committed between 1983-1987 when the complainant was between 13 and 17 years old. Accused was complainant’s ballet teacher. Offending alleged to have occurred during a sleepover at the accused’s ballet studio when other students were present, at sleepovers at houses the accused rented, in the complainant’s bedroom in her family home when the accused dropped off the complainant after ballet class, on a trip to New Zealand and a ballet study tour in Europe, at the complainant’s grandparents’ home which the accused was renting for a short period and when the accused visited the complainant whilst she was studying ballet with the New Zealand School of Dance in 1988 for 11 months. Uncharged offending in other jurisdictions admitted pursuant to s 34P (2) (b) Evidence Act 1921. When complainant returned from New Zealand she was an adult and suffering from bulimia– complainant gave evidence that she moved into accused’s house upon her return because her bedroom had been rented out by her parents in her absence – sexual activity resumed - complainant continued to live with the accused until she was accepted into the Queensland Ballet Company in January 1991. Accused took complainant to hospital for her bulimia in March 1989 – hospital notes recording complainant’s observations and feelings towards accused tendered as business record.
Complainant disclosed offending in general terms to fellow ballet dancer whom she dated briefly whilst in Queensland dancing for the Queensland Ballet Company.
Prosecution commissioned expert report pursuant to s 29C Evidence Act 1929 in November 2024 without informing the accused’s legal representatives or the court at a pre-trial hearing in December 2024. Prosecution received expert report on 9 January 2025 and disclosed it to the accused’s legal representatives that afternoon, 1.5 working days before trial. Conduct of prosecution was in breach of s 123 (2) (d) and (e) Criminal Procedure Act 1921. Order made pursuant to s 125 (1) CPA that prosecution not permitted to lead the expert evidence.
Held: Credibility and reliability of complainant’s account undermined by the evidence of the complainant’s mother, and two fellow ballet students and proved prior inconsistent statements on material topics. Complainant’s explanations for sleeping over at the accused’s house and moving in with the accused upon her return from New Zealand implausible and contradicted by evidence of complainant’s mother. Complainant’s evidence of nature of relationship with accused and her conduct as ballet teacher contradicted by evidence of fellow students and hospital notes. Complainant’s evidence of opportunity for accused to abuse her in her own bedroom contradicted by evidence of complainant’s mother. Accused participated in very lengthy record of interview – accused’s denials compelling and could not be rejected beyond…

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, E

Details

AGLC: R v C, E [2025] SADC 13
Case: [2025] SADC 13
Decision Date: 19 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, C and E, were charged with separate sexual offences against a child. C was charged with sexual penetration of a child under 16 years, while E was charged with aggravated sexual assault. Both were tried together in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the jury was properly directed in relation to the credibility of the child victim and whether the jury could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offences had occurred.

The court found that the trial judge had adequately directed the jury on the importance of assessing the credibility of the child victim, taking into account the inherent unreliability of child testimony. The court held that the judge's directions were sufficient to ensure that the jury understood the need for a high standard of proof. The court also found that the evidence presented was sufficient for a reasonable jury, properly directed, to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the respondents' guilt. The court examined the evidence thoroughly and concluded that the jury's verdicts were supported by the evidence.

In conclusion, the court upheld the convictions of both respondents. The directions given to the jury were deemed adequate, and the evidence was found to be sufficient to support the jury's verdicts beyond reasonable doubt. The court confirmed the convictions and left the matter of sentencing to be determined in a subsequent hearing.

Orders