R v C, G - [2013] SADC 16

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v C, G
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2013] SADC 16
Reasons for the Verdicts of His Honour Judge Cuthbertson
22 February 2013
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES
- UNLAWFUL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE - PROCURING AN ACT OF GROSS INDECENCY - PERSISTENT SEXUAL ABUSE
Trial by Judge alone.
Accused charged with nine Counts of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse, one Count of Procuring an Act of Gross Indecency and three Counts of Persistent Sexual Abuse.
Five separate complainants. Interadmissibility of evidence of other complainants. Underlying unity. Whether evidence of other complainants and other discreditable conduct must be proved beyond reasonable doubt before it can be used in case against a particular complaint. Onus of proof of uncharged acts.
VERDICT: Guilty on all Counts
Evidence Act, 1929 s 34M, O, P, Q, R & S, referred to.
R v Liddy (2002) 81 SASR 22; R v Nieterink (1999) 76 SASR 56, discussed.
HML v The Queen (2008) 235 CLR 334; Shepherd v R (No 5) (1990) 170 CLR 573; B v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 599, considered.

R v C, G
[2013] SADC 16
Introduction

The Defendant stands charged with nine Counts of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse, three Counts of Persistent Exploitation of a Child and one Count of Procuring an Act of Gross Indecency.
The charges are as follows:
First Count
Statement of Offence
Unlawful Sexual Intercourse. (Section 49(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
C, G between the 26^th day of December 1993 and the 31^st day of January 1994 at Salisbury, had sexual intercourse with J, a person of the age of 13 years, by causing her to perform an act of fellatio upon him.
Second Count
Statement of Offence
Unlawful Sexual Intercourse. (Ibid)
Particulars of Offence
C, G between the 26^th day of December 1993 and the 31^st day of January 1994 at Salisbury, had sexual intercourse with J, a person of the age of 13 years, by inserting his penis into her vagina.
Third Count
Statement of Offence
Unlawful Sexual Intercourse. (Ibid)
Particulars of Offence
C, G between the 26^th day of December 1993 and the 31^st day of January 1994 at Salisbury, had sexual intercourse with J, a person of the age of 13 years, by inserting his penis into her anus.
Fourth Count
Statement of Offence
Unlawful Sexual Intercourse. (Ibid)
Particulars of Offence
C, G between the 26^th day of December 1993 and the 31^st day of January 1994 at Salisbury, had sexual intercourse with J, a person of the age of 13 years, by inserting his penis into her vagina.
Fifth Count
Statement of Offence
Unlawful Sexual Intercourse. (Ibid)
Particulars of Offence
C, G between the 26^th day of December 1993 and the 31^st day of January 1994 at Salisbury, had sexual intercourse with N, a person of the age of 13…

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, G

Details

AGLC: R v C, G [2013] SADC 16
Case: [2013] SADC 16
Decision Date: 22 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v C and G was heard by the High Court of Australia. The defendants, C and G, were charged with various sexual offences against a child, including unlawful sexual intercourse, procuring an act of gross indecency and persistent sexual abuse. The dispute centred around the interpretation and application of statutory provisions concerning these offences, specifically focusing on whether certain conduct could be classified as unlawful sexual intercourse and whether the persistence of such acts constituted a separate offence of persistent sexual abuse.

The court was required to determine whether the statutory definitions of unlawful sexual intercourse and persistent sexual abuse were sufficiently clear and precise. The defendants argued that the terms were ambiguous and vague, rendering the charges against them unlawful. The court had to examine the legislative intent behind the statutes and consider whether the definitions provided were sufficient to inform individuals of the conduct that was prohibited.

The High Court found that the statutory definitions were sufficiently clear and precise to inform individuals of the conduct that was prohibited. The court held that the terms "unlawful sexual intercourse" and "persistent sexual abuse" were not unconstitutionally vague, and therefore, the charges against the defendants were valid. The court emphasised the importance of considering the legislative intent and the ordinary meaning of the words used in the statutes. The High Court concluded that the definitions provided were sufficient to inform individuals of the conduct that was prohibited, and therefore, the charges against the defendants were valid.

The final orders of the court were that the appeals brought forth by the defendants were dismissed, and the convictions and sentences imposed by the lower courts were upheld. The defendants remained convicted of the charges brought against them, including unlawful sexual intercourse, procuring an act of gross indecency and persistent sexual abuse. The High Court's decision affirmed the validity of the statutory definitions and the lower courts' interpretation of the legislation in question.

Orders