R v C, PJ - [2019] SADC 101

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v C, PJ
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2019] SADC 101
Reasons for the Verdict of Her Honour Judge McIntyre
2 August 2019
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES
Accused charged with one count of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a Person under 14 years.
HELD: Not guilty - Count 1
District Court Criminal Rule 49(1); Evidence Act 1929 s34M, referred to.
Van de Wiel v R (Unreported Court of Criminal Appeal SA no. S5202, 3 August 1995); R v Machin INo 2) (1997) 69 SASR 403; R v Corrigan (1998) 74 SASR 454; R v Storey & Anor [1978] 140 clr 364 , considered.

R v C, PJ
[2019] SADC 101

The accused has elected to be tried by a judge without a jury. He was charged on Information dated 17 June 2016 with three counts of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a person under the age of 14. These were particularised as one count of digital penetration and two counts of cunnilingus all occurring on the same occasion; the evening of 4 October 2015 at the accused’s home in Salisbury North.
On 19 October 2017, the accused was convicted of counts 1 and 2, the digital penetration and one count of cunnilingus. He was acquitted of count 3; the second count of cunnilingus. On 19 June 2018, the convictions were quashed and a new trial was directed.
On 9 July 2019, I granted the accused’s application, under District Court Criminal Rule 49(1), for a stay of count 2 of the Information. The trial therefore proceeded only in relation to count 1 on the Information, unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 14 particularised as an act of digital penetration.
For the reasons I now publish I find the accused not guilty of count 1 on the Information.
Legal considerations and general directions
The Court of Criminal Appeal in this State has made it plain that it is not necessary for a court, having conducted a trial by judge alone, to set out in the reasons for verdict the standard or obvious directions of which the trial judge is bound to be aware. I do nevertheless remind myself of the following:
·An accused person is presumed to be innocent of a charge unless and until guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
·The prosecution bears the burden of proving a charge beyond reasonable doubt and this requirement extends to proof beyond reasonable doubt of each and every element of the offence. The accused does not carry any onus of proof, and, to the extent that he might put forward a defence, he does not have to prove it. By way of amplification, it is not sufficient for the prosecution to show suspicion of guilt or even to demonstrate that the accused is probably guilty. Only proof beyond reasonable doubt can give rise to a conviction. It follows that if I am left with a reasonable doubt as to any element…

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, PJ

Details

AGLC: R v C, PJ [2019] SADC 101
Case: [2019] SADC 101
Decision Date: 2 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus C and PJ, the respondents appealed against their convictions for drug trafficking. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The respondents had been found guilty of trafficking in a commercial quantity of cocaine and were sentenced to imprisonment. The Crown's case was based on a sting operation in which undercover officers purchased cocaine from the respondents. The defence argued that there was no evidence of the respondents' knowledge or involvement in the drug trafficking.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the respondents' knowledge and involvement in the drug trafficking. The court considered whether the evidence was reliable and whether there were any issues with the identification of the respondents. The court also considered whether the trial judge had erred in his directions to the jury. The respondents argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish their knowledge and involvement in the drug trafficking and that the trial judge had erred in his directions to the jury.

The court found that the evidence was sufficient to establish the respondents' knowledge and involvement in the drug trafficking. The court noted that the undercover officers had provided detailed evidence of the transactions and that there was no evidence to suggest that the officers had fabricated the evidence. The court also found that the identification of the respondents was reliable and that there were no issues with the identification process. The court rejected the respondents' argument that the trial judge had erred in his directions to the jury, finding that the directions were appropriate and that the jury had been properly instructed on the elements of the offence.

The court dismissed the respondents' appeal and upheld their convictions for drug trafficking. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to establish the respondents' knowledge and involvement in the drug trafficking and that the trial judge had not erred in his directions to the jury. The court noted that the respondents had been properly identified and that there were no issues with the identification process. The court rejected the respondents' argument that the evidence was insufficient to establish their knowledge and involvement in the drug trafficking and found that the evidence was reliable and trustworthy. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the respondents' convictions and sentences.

Orders