R v C, Pt - [2017] SADC 113

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v C, PT
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2017] SADC 113
Reasons for the Verdicts of Her Honour Judge Tracey
19 October 2017
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES
The accused charged with three counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under 14 years. Interviews of complainant admitted pursuant to s 13BA of the Evidence Act 1929. Accused denied offences and gave evidence.
Verdict: Guilty of counts 1 and 2. Not guilty of count 3.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 s 5; Evidence Act 1929 s 13BA, s 25, s 34D; Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) Act 2016 s 27, referred to.
R v Randall (1991) 55 SASR 447, considered.

R v C, PT
[2017] SADC 113

The accused (‘PTC’) is charged with three counts unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 14 years. It is alleged that late in the evening on 4 October 2015 or early on 5 October 2015, he performed sexual acts on the complainant (‘CR’) who was then seven years of age, at his home in Salisbury North.
On 4 October 2015, CR, her mother LC and sister AR, stayed overnight at PTC’s house. LC’s now husband, DC, was living with his brother PTC at the time. The next morning, CR made a complaint to her mother about PTC. CR was taken to the Lyell McEwin Hospital where no evidence of genital injury was found on examination. Samples were taken from CR’s vaginal area and from her pyjama shorts. Police recorded an interview with CR on that day (‘recording 1’). Another recorded interview with CR took place on 3 June 2016 (‘recording 2’).
When PTC was interviewed by police he denied the offending. Samples were taken from his hands and fingernails and the area around his mouth.
PTC elected for trial by judge alone and gave evidence at the trial.
The charges
PTC is charged with the following offences:
First count
Statement of Offence
Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a person under 14 years. (Section 49(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
PTC on or about the 4^th day of October 2015 at Salisbury North, had sexual intercourse with CR, a person under the age of 14 years, by inserting a finger into her vagina.
Second count
Statement of Offence
Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a person under 14 years. (Ibid)
Particulars of Offence
PTC on or about the 4^th day of October 2015 at Salisbury North, had sexual intercourse with CR, a person under the age of 14 years, performing an act of cunnilingus upon her.
Third count
Statement of Offence
Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a person under 14 years. (Ibid)
Particulars of Offence
PTC on or about the 4^th day of October 2015 at Salisbury North, had sexual intercourse with CR, a person under the age of 14 years, performing an act of cunnilingus upon her.
In order to prove…

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, Pt

Details

AGLC: R v C, Pt [2017] SADC 113
Case: [2017] SADC 113
Decision Date: 19 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, R, was convicted of sexually assaulting the respondent, C, and appealed against his conviction on the grounds of mistaken identity. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to exclude the possibility of mistaken identity to the extent required by law. The court had to consider whether the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable jury could have entertained a reasonable doubt about the appellant's identity as the perpetrator of the crime.

The court examined the evidence and concluded that the identification of the appellant was reliable and compelling. The court found that the identification evidence, coupled with other corroborative evidence, was sufficient to exclude any reasonable possibility of mistaken identity. The court held that the trial judge had correctly directed the jury on the issue of identity and that the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the evidence was insufficient to exclude mistaken identity and upheld the conviction.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction was upheld. The court's decision was based on the strength of the identification evidence and the corroborative evidence presented at trial. The court held that the jury was entitled to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was the person who committed the offence. The court did not make any orders as the appeal was dismissed.

Orders