Legal Research
Cases
R v DAWSON-RYAN

R v DAWSON-RYAN

Case [2009] SADC 26 16 March 2009

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)
R v DAWSON-RYAN
[2009] SADC 26
Reasons for Decision of His Honour Judge Barrett
16 March 2009
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - SIMILAR FACTS - ADMISSIBILITY
Accused charged with 23 sexual offences against six boys. Four allege a course of sexual offending over several years, two allege single acts. All belonged to a church youth club. Accused applies to sever evidence of all complainants. Voir dire held to determine, first, whether concoction between complainants can be excluded and second, whether evidence of charged and uncharged acts from each complainant is admissible in respect of others. Held: Concoction excluded. Evidence of the two complainants alleging single acts severed from each other and from the other complainants. Evidence of remaining four complainants cross-admissible. Severence declined.
Hoch v The Queen (1998) 165 CLR 292; Pfennig v R (1995) 182 CLR 461; Phillips v The Queen [2006] HCA 4; Phillips v The Queen (2006) 224 ALR 216; R v Bridger (2003) 228 LSJS 112; R v Beserick (1993) 30 NSWLR 510; S v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 266; R v Liddy (2002) 81 SASR 22; Dick v The Queen [2001] WASCA 152; R v Riley [1997] QCA 227; R v Strickland [2002] WACCA 339; R v Carne (1977) 194 A Crim R 249; R v Kilbourne [1973] AC 729; R v Nieterink (1999) 76 SASR 56; R v Perry (1982) 150 CLR 580; R v Sutton (1983-4) 152 CLR 528; R v Markby (1978) 140 CLR 108; Harriman v The Queen [1989] HCA 590; R v Boardman [1975] AC 421, considered.

R v DAWSON-RYAN
[2009] SADC 26

The accused is charged with 23 sexual offences against six boys between 1972 and 1988. The boys were then aged between 11 and 15 years. They are now men in their 30s and 40s. The accused was born on Christmas Day 1948. He was a leader of the Church of England Boys Society (CEBS) and the boys were all members of CEBS. Single counts of indecent assault are alleged in respect of two of the boys. In respect of the other four it is alleged there was prolonged offending with individual counts identified. The six complainants are two pairs of brothers and two individual complainants.
The complainants reported the offending between 1992 and 2004.
The accused was arrested on in June 2004. He declined to answer police questions.
Voir Dire
The prosecution seeks to proceed by way of a single trial involving all six complainants. It seeks to lead charged and uncharged acts in respect of the four complainants who allege a course of conduct. The accused seeks severance of all counts so that there are six trials. The voir dire was conducted in two stages.
The first stage concerned the question of alleged concoction between the complainants. During that part of the voir dire the six complainants gave evidence. The wife of…

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 DAWSON-RYAN

Details

AGLC: R v Dawson-Ryan [2009] SADC 26
Case: [2009] SADC 26
Decision Date: 16 March 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a prosecution against Dawson-Ryan, who was charged with an offence under the Criminal Code. The central issue revolved around the admissibility of evidence relating to a previous act of a similar nature. The matter was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant contested the use of evidence about past conduct, arguing that it was prejudicial and irrelevant to the current charges.

The primary legal question was whether evidence of similar facts could be admitted to prove the defendant's propensity to commit the offence in question. The court had to consider the principles established in previous case law, particularly focusing on the balance between probative value and prejudicial effect. It was necessary to examine whether the evidence was sufficiently similar to the current offence and whether it could assist the jury in making a decision based on the facts presented.

In delivering the judgment, the court noted the well-established criteria for admitting similar fact evidence, as outlined in prior decisions. It found that the evidence in question met the necessary criteria, as it was relevant to prove an element of the offence and had significant probative value. The court concluded that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have. Consequently, the evidence was deemed admissible, and the trial proceeded with the inclusion of this evidence. The defendant's appeal against this decision was ultimately dismissed.

Orders