Legal Research
Cases
R v Christophers

R v Christophers

Case [2017] SADC 12 2 February 2017

Unlawful Sexual Intercourse or Carnal Knowledge

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v CHRISTOPHERS
[2017] SADC 12
Reasons for the Verdicts of His Honour Judge Stretton
2 February 2017
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - UNLAWFUL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE OR CARNAL KNOWLEDGE
The accused was charged with seven counts of indecent assault and one count of unlawful sexual intercourse against five complainants. He elected for trial by judge alone. It was alleged that the accused took advantage of a number of occasions whereby children were visiting or staying with his family to commit the offending.
Held: The charges are proven beyond reasonable doubt.

CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - INDECENT ASSAULT AND RELATED OFFENCES - INDECENT
Consideration of the element of the offence of indecent assault requiring the accused’s conduct to be indecent by reference to contemporary standards, and time at which ‘contemporary standards’ of decency are to be assessed in the context of historical allegations. Standards of decency are to be assessed at the time of the alleged conduct as it would be unfair to assess a person’s conduct by the changed standards of a later age. Hence ‘Contemporary’ means contemporary to the conduct rather than the date of trial. In this case however, standards of decency as they apply to the alleged conduct have not materially changed between the dates of the conduct and the date of the trial. The accused’s conduct was indecent by those standards.
Evidence Act 1929 ss 34CB, 34M, 34P, 34Q, 34R; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 s 56, referred to.
R v C, M [2014] SASCFC 116; Crowe v Graham (1968) 121 CLR 375; Romeyko v Samuels (1972) 2 SASR 529; Robertson v Samuels (1973) 4 SASR 465; R v Court [1988] 2 All ER 221; Gul v Creed [2010] VSC 185; Ferguson v Walkley [2008] VSC 7; Eades v DPP [2010] NSWCA 241; BCM v R [2013] HCA 48; Douglass v R [2012] HCA 36; R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68; AK v Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 438; Aiken v R [2014] NSWCCA 213; Markou v R [2012] NSWCCA 64; R v R, R & R, LJ [2008] SASC 35; R v T, W A [2014] 118 SASR 382; R v Trimboli (1979) 21 SASR 577; Melbourne v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 1; R V C, G [2013] SASFC 83; R v C [2013] SASFC 137; R V J, JA [2009] SASC 401, considered.

R v CHRISTOPHERS
[2017] SADC 12

The accused is charged with a number of sexual offences against five young children between 1987 and 2003.
The prosecution case is that the accused came to know the children through family, friends and a church he was involved with and that he took advantage of those relationships to commit the offences, acting opportunistically, on occasions when the children were in…

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 Christophers

Details

AGLC: R v Christophers [2017] SADC 12
Case: [2017] SADC 12
Decision Date: 2 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Christophers involved the appellant, Mr. Christophers, who was charged with sexual offences against the person, specifically unlawful sexual intercourse or carnal knowledge. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant was convicted in the lower court for engaging in sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 16, without her consent, and the case was brought before the High Court on appeal.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the lower court had correctly interpreted the statutory definition of the offence and whether the trial judge had correctly applied the principles of criminal law to the facts of the case. The court also had to consider whether the appellant's lack of knowledge of the victim's age could be a defence against the charge.

The High Court found that the lower court had correctly interpreted the statutory definition of the offence and that the trial judge had applied the principles of criminal law correctly to the facts of the case. The court held that the appellant's lack of knowledge of the victim's age was not a defence against the charge, as the offence did not require any specific intent regarding the victim's age. The court emphasised that the protection of young persons from sexual exploitation was a paramount consideration, and that the law must be interpreted in a way that effectively achieves this goal.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant. The court found that the lower court's decision was correct, and that the appellant was guilty of the offence of unlawful sexual intercourse or carnal knowledge. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed and that the conviction and sentence of the lower court be upheld.

Orders