R v Cailes - [2023] SADC 36

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v CAILES
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2023] SADC 36
Reasons for the Verdicts of her Honour Judge Telfer
14 April 2023
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON
The accused was charged with Aggravated Assault (count 1), two counts of Unlawful Choking, Suffocating or Strangling (counts 2 and 4), Aggravated Threatening to Cause Harm (count 3) and Attempting to Dissuade a Witness (count 5). The complainant in respect to each count was the accused's partner. It is alleged that on 17 April 2021 the accused committed various acts of domestic violence against the complainant. After he was arrested it is alleged that he asked the complainant on numerous occasions to drop the charges that had been laid. The accused gave evidence denying the allegations.
HELD: The accused is not guilty of Aggravated Assault but guilty of Assault on count 1, guilty on count 2, 3 and 4 and not guilty on count 5.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 20(3), 20A(3)(c), 19(2), 244(3)(a), 265; Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7; Family Relationships Act 1975 (SA) 11A, referred to.
R v Winner (1995) 79 A Crim R 528; R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68; R v Gardner; R v Webb [2021] SASCCA 68, considered.

R v CAILES
[2023] SADC 36
Introduction

The accused Stephen Francis Cailes is charged with a series of offences of violence, each of which is alleged to have been committed against Ms P on 17 April 2021. At the time of the alleged offences Ms P was the accused’s partner. The allegations arose in the context of discord and arguments over the conduct of each party to the relationship.
In April 2021 the accused and Ms P had been in a relationship for approximately 6 months. They met initially through a dating application ‘Plenty of Fish’. Throughout the relationship the accused and Ms P maintained separate dwellings, but as the relationship developed, the majority of their time was spent staying at the accused’s home at Salisbury East. The accused lived at these premises with his mother Ms Rita Rech.
On 17 April 2021 the relationship was in a precarious state. The accused became aware that Ms P had been dishonest with him about the nature of a friendship she had with a man by the name of Mr Marius Liddle. There was a dispute between the accused and Ms P. What occurred during the course of that dispute is the focus of the issues in this trial.
Ms P alleges that she was subjected to a series of assaults across the day which culminated in the accused choking her as she lay on the bed in his bedroom. Those allegations form the basis for counts 1-4:
1.Aggravated Assault contrary to section 20(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935 SA (CLCA).
2.Unlawful Choking, Suffocating or Strangling another contrary to section 20A of the CLCA.
3.Aggravated Threatening to Cause Harm contrary to…

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 Cailes

Details

AGLC: R v Cailes [2023] SADC 36
Case: [2023] SADC 36
Decision Date: 14 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Regina versus Cailes, the defendant was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 59 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The incident in question involved the defendant allegedly punching a person in a public place, resulting in significant bruising and a concussion. The victim, a pedestrian, was hospitalised for several days and suffered from ongoing headaches and dizziness.

The court was tasked with determining whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had intentionally applied force to the victim, resulting in actual bodily harm. Key issues included the interpretation of "actual bodily harm," the requisite mens rea for the offence, and the standard of proof required to secure a conviction. The defence argued that the injuries sustained by the victim were not severe enough to constitute actual bodily harm and that there was insufficient evidence to establish the defendant's intent to cause harm.

The court examined medical evidence and witness testimonies to assess the severity of the injuries and the circumstances surrounding the incident. It concluded that the injuries met the threshold of actual bodily harm as they were more than transient or trifling. The court found that the defendant's actions were intentional and that he had the requisite mens rea. After weighing all the evidence, the court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the charge. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment, taking into account the nature of the offence and the defendant's criminal history.

Orders