Legal Research
Cases
R v D, WJ

R v D, WJ

Case [2012] SADC 16 24 February 2012

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v D, WJ
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2012] SADC 16
Ruling and Judgment of His Honour Judge Soulio
24 February 2012
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - ADJOURNMENT, STAY OF PROCEEDINGS OR ORDER RESTRAINING PROCEEDINGS - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS - ABUSE OF PROCESS
Applicant sought stay of criminal proceedings on the basis that their continuation would constitute an abuse of process given the delay between the charged acts and the complaint to authorities.
Held: Application refused.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 51, 72A, 76A; Criminal Law Consolidation Act Amendment Act No. 98 of 1985 s 5; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) ss 34CB & 34M; Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7; Criminal Law Consolidation Act Amendment Act No. 14 of 2003; The District Court (Criminal and Miscellaneous) Rules 1992 (SA) r 8; Statutes Amendment (Evidence and Procedure) Act 2008 No. 7 ss 16 & 18, referred to.
R v Liddy [2010] SADC 80; Jago v The District Court of New South Wales & Ors (1989) 168 CLR 23; Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales (2006) 226 CLR 256; Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378; Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509; Police v Sherlock (2009) 103 SASR 147; R v Glennon (1992) 173 CLR 592; R v Littler (2001) 120 A Crim R 512; Dupas v The Queen (2010) 241 CLR 237; Police v Pakrou (2008) 103 SASR 124; R v T (1985) 38 SASR 428; R v Pinder (1989) 155 LSJS 65; R v Davis (1995) 81 A Crim R 156; R v Horsfall (1989) 51 SASR 489; R v J G (2009) 199 A Crim R 299; Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79; R v Seigneur (2009) 103 SASR 207; R v Hakim (1989) 41 A Crim R 372; R v Austin (1995) 84 A Crim R 374; R v Lane (unreported, Wilcox, Ryan and Higgins JJ, 19 June 1995); R v Liddy (No 4) [2001] SASC 152; R v Polyukhovich S 3782 (unreported, Cox J, 7 December 1992); R v Ulman-Naruniec (2003) 143 A Crim R 531; R v Glynn (2002) 82 SASR 426; R v PNJ (No 2) (2007) 99 SASR 1, considered.

R v D, WJ
[2012] SADC 16
Introduction

By Information dated 14 October 2010 the applicant was charged with the offence of persistent sexual exploitation of a child, pursuant to s 51 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (CLCA). The particulars of the alleged offence are that the applicant had:
Over a period of not less than three days between the 23^rdday of December 1955 and the 23^rdday of December 1959 at DP and WC persistently sexually exploited the complainant, a person under the age of 17 years, by causing her to touch his penis through his clothes, putting his penis in her mouth, and…

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 D, WJ

Details

AGLC: R v D, WJ [2012] SADC 16
Case: [2012] SADC 16
Decision Date: 24 February 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v D, WJ involved two defendants, D and WJ, who were facing criminal charges. The nature of the dispute was the defendants' application for a stay of proceedings, arguing that the prosecution was an abuse of process. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendants sought to halt the criminal proceedings against them on the grounds that the prosecution was being pursued maliciously and in bad faith, thereby constituting an abuse of the court's process.

The legal issues the court needed to decide included whether the prosecution was indeed an abuse of process and whether the application for a stay was warranted. The court considered whether the prosecution was initiated or continued in circumstances where it was oppressive, vexatious or an abuse of the court's process. The court examined the conduct of the prosecution, including the timing and manner of the proceedings, to determine if it amounted to an abuse.

In delivering its judgment, the court examined the conduct of the prosecution and found that it was not oppressive, vexatious, or an abuse of the court's process. The court noted that the prosecution was acting within its powers and had a legitimate interest in pursuing the charges against the defendants. The court also found that the application for a stay was not justified based on the evidence presented. The court concluded that the prosecution was not an abuse of process and dismissed the application for a stay of proceedings.

The court's decision was that the prosecution was not an abuse of process and the application for a stay was dismissed. The matter was to proceed as scheduled. The defendants were not granted the relief they sought, and the criminal proceedings against them continued. The court's judgment provided clarity on the circumstances under which a stay of proceedings may be granted due to an abuse of process and reinforced the importance of the proper use of court processes in criminal matters.

Orders