R v DA

Case [2023] SADC 119 1 September 2023

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v DA
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2023] SADC 119
Reasons for the Verdict of his Honour Judge Handshin
1 September 2023
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES
The accused was charged with one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child, contrary to s 50 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). The complainant was aged between 11 and 12 years at the time of the alleged offending and was the accused’s step-son. The prosecution case was that the accused sexually abused the complainant on eight to 10 occasions between mid 2018 and early 2020. The complainant gave evidence of five particular episodes during which a number of sexual acts were said to have been committed by the accused.
The complainant made a complaint of sexual abuse to his friend in early 2021 and in April 2022 made a further report of abuse to his mother. As a result of the disclosure to his mother, the complainant participated in a prescribed interview shortly thereafter. It was the prosecution case that the complainant’s disclosure to his mother was an elaboration of the initial complaint made in early 2021 and admissible pursuant to s 34M of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA).
The complainant’s evidence of the alleged offending was uncorroborated and was materially inconsistent in multiple respects. The evidence suggested further that the accused may have had limited opportunities to commit at least some of the unlawful sexual acts alleged.
Verdict: Not Guilty.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 48, 50, 56, 58, 270A, ; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) ss 12A, 13BA(3), 13BA(5), 13BA(6), 34CB, 34M, 34P; Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) Division 17; Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA) s 23(3), referred to.
R v JJP [2021] SASCA 53; R v Dookheea (2017) 262 CLR 402; Kirkland v The Queen [2021] SASCA 14; R v Haak (2012) 112 SASR 315; R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12; JGS v The Queen [2020] SASCFC 48; R v T, WA (2014) 118 SASR 382; R v R, PA [2019] SASCFC 19; Davis and Hyland v The Queen (Unreported, Supreme Court of South Australia, 8 September 1995, Judgment No 5250); De Sa v The Queen [2012] SASCFC 22; R v Jones [2018] SASCFC 80; R v P, S [2016] SASCFC 97; R v Maiolo (No 3) [2014] SASCFC 89; R v Landmeter [2015] SASCFC 3; Boyle (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2022] SASCA 50; R v J, JA (2009) 105 SASR 563, considered.

R v DA
[2023] SADC 119
Criminal Jurisdiction

The accused, DA, is charged on Information dated 29 November 2022 with one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child, contrary to s 50 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (CLCA). The alleged victim of the offence, SA, was, at…

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 DA

Details

AGLC: R v DA [2023] SADC 119
Case: [2023] SADC 119
Decision Date: 1 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v DA involved a prosecution against the defendant, DA, for a sexual offence against the complainant, identified as 'JD'. The dispute centred around allegations of sexual assault and was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendant contested the allegations, leading to a trial where evidence from both parties was presented. The nature of the offence involved serious accusations of non-consensual sexual activity, which required careful consideration of the credibility and reliability of the evidence provided.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the determination of whether the prosecution had successfully established the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Specifically, the court had to evaluate the consent of the complainant, the defendant's state of mind, and the factual circumstances leading to the alleged offence. Additionally, the court examined the reliability of the evidence, including witness testimonies and the consistency of the complainant's statements.

In its reasoning, the court meticulously analysed the evidence presented, emphasising the importance of corroboration and the inherent unreliability of uncorroborated testimony from a single witness. The court found that the prosecution had not sufficiently proven the absence of consent and that there were inconsistencies in the complainant's account. Consequently, the court acquitted the defendant, ruling that the evidence did not meet the requisite standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The final orders of the court were that the defendant, DA, be acquitted of the charges brought against him.

Orders