District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v CP [2022] NSWDC 125 Hearing dates: 14 July 2021; 1, 18, 19, 20, 21 January 2022; 21, 22 February 2022; 4, 5 April 2022; 22 April 2022 Date of orders: 22 April 2022 Decision date: 22 April 2022 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Weinstein SC DCJ Decision: I find the accused guilty of count 1 on the indictment. I find him not guilty of counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 on the indictment.
Catchwords: Judge alone trial - Sexual intercourse- Indecent assault–– Consent – Historical offending during the course of marriage- Tendency evidence
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Evidence Act 1995
Cases Cited: Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Regina (Crown)
CP (Defendant)Representation: Ms S Beaumont (Crown)
Mr M Coroneos (Defence)
File Number(s): 2019/111137 Publication restriction: Suppression order with respect to the names of the complainants or information that might identify them
Judgment
-
The accused is charged with one count of indecent assault upon ML contrary to section 61L of the Crimes Act 1900, six counts of sexual intercourse without consent upon SJ contrary to section 61I of the Crimes Act 1900 and one count of indecent assault upon SJ contrary to section 61L of the Crimes Act 1900.
-
The indictment reads as follows:
CP, between 12 June 1994 and 2 December 1996, at Hazelbrook in the State of New South Wales, assaulted ML and at the time of the assault committed an act of indecency on ML contrary to section 61L of the Crimes Act 1900 (Count 1).
CP, between 1 May 1995 and 31 December 1998, at Hazelbrook in the State of New South Wales, had sexual intercourse with SJ without her consent and knowing that SJ had not consented to the sexual intercourse contrary to section 61I of the Crimes Act 1900 (Count 2).
CP, between 1 May 1995 and 31 December 1998, at Hazelbrook in the State of New South Wales, had sexual intercourse with SJ without her consent and knowing that SJ had not consented to the sexual intercourse contrary to section 61I of the Crimes Act 1900. (Count 3)
CP, between 1 August 1998 and 31 December 1998, at Hinchinbrook in the State of New South Wales, had sexual intercourse with SJ without her consent and knowing that SJ had not consented to the sexual intercourse contrary to section 61I of the Crimes Act 1900 (Count 4).
CP, between 1 August 1998 and 31 December 1998, at Hinchinbrook in the State of New South Wales, had sexual intercourse with SJ without her consent and knowing that SJ had not consented to the sexual intercourse contrary to section 61I of the Crimes Act 1900 (Count 5).
CP, between 1 August 1998 and 31 December 1998, at Hinchinbrook in the State of New South Wales, had sexual intercourse with SJ without her…
Continue reading R v CP
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v CP [2022] NSWDC 125
- Case
- [2022] NSWDC 125
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court's reasoning focused on the principles of consent and the relevance of historical evidence in sexual assault cases. It was established that consent was not given to the acts alleged in the indictment. The court considered the relevance of the defendant's past behaviour to the charges, particularly whether such evidence could establish a propensity to commit the alleged offences. The court ruled that some historical evidence was admissible to show a pattern of behaviour, while other evidence was excluded as irrelevant or prejudicial. The court concluded that the defendant's past actions were relevant to the charges, but only to the extent that they demonstrated a propensity towards the alleged offences.
The court found the defendant guilty of one count of indecent assault and not guilty on the remaining counts. The court determined that the evidence was sufficient to prove the single count of indecent assault beyond reasonable doubt, while the other allegations were not substantiated by the evidence presented. The court's final orders reflect the verdict, with the defendant found guilty on one count and not guilty on the others. The court did not impose any sentence at this stage, as the defendant has the right to appeal the conviction.
Orders
Orders of the court
I find the accused guilty of count 1 on the indictment. I find him not guilty of counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 on the indictment.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.