Legal Research
Cases
R v Dennis

R v Dennis

Case [2010] SASC 69 31 March 2010

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v DENNIS
[2010] SASC 69
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Justice Nyland, The Honourable Justice Vanstone and The Honourable Justice Kourakis)
31 March 2010
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - CREDIBILITY - GENERALLY
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - SIMILAR FACTS
Applicant tried by a judge sitting alone in the District Court on sexual charges arising from the 1980s against two male complainants unknown to each other - whether the trial judge had acted on an inaccurate version of the applicant's evidence to discredit the applicant - whether the judge should have directed himself in terms of the use of lies going to consciousness of guilt - whether the judge was correct in his treatment of the distressed demeanour of one of the complainants in the witness box.
Held: permission to appeal granted on one ground only and appeal dismissed.
Observations by Vanstone J as to the judge's ruling that the evidence of each complainant was not admissible in respect of the charges based on the other complainant's evidence.
R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68; Question of Law Reserved on Acquittal No 1 of 1993 (1993) 59 SASR 214, applied.
R v Mitchell (unreported CCA(NSW) 5 April 1995, BC 9504682), distinguished.
R v Mayberry [2000] NSWCCA 531, not followed.
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; R v Barrowman (2007) 96 SASR 294; R v Beard [2004] SASC 411; R v Liddy (2002) 81 SASR 22; Hoch v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 292; Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461, discussed.
R v Schlaefer (1984) 37 SASR 207; KRM v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 221; R v Von Heytmanek (2006) 96 SASR 97, considered.

R v DENNIS
[2010] SASC 69
Court of Criminal Appeal: Nyland, Vanstone and Kourakis JJ

NYLAND J: I have read the reasons of Vanstone J. I agree with her observations on the question of cross-admissibility. The Trial Judge discussed the correct approach to this topic when he delivered his ruling on 18 August 2009 and declined to sever the counts. Like Vanstone J, I do not understand why the Judge then took a different approach when he delivered his reasons for the verdict. I agree that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons expressed by Vanstone J and I agree with the orders that she proposes.
VANSTONE J. The applicant, Wilfred Edwin Dennis, was tried by a judge sitting alone in the District Court on three charges of indecent assault and one each of gross indecency and carnal knowledge. The charges arose from the period November 1972 to October 1975, when the applicant was an Anglican priest. There were two complainants, but there is nothing to suggest that they were known to each other. Each additionally alleged uncharged conduct. In the course of his reasons for verdict, the judge ruled that the evidence as to the…

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 Dennis

Details

AGLC: R v Dennis [2010] SASC 69
Case: [2010] SASC 69
Decision Date: 31 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dennis involved the applicant, who was tried by a judge sitting alone in the District Court on charges of sexual offences from the 1980s. The charges were made by two male complainants who did not know each other. The central issues in the case were the credibility of the applicant's evidence and the manner in which the trial judge assessed and responded to the testimonies, particularly in relation to the applicant's credibility and the demeanour of the complainants.

The legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the trial judge had acted on an inaccurate version of the applicant's evidence to discredit him, whether the judge should have directed himself in terms of the use of lies going to consciousness of guilt, and whether the judge was correct in his treatment of the distressed demeanour of one of the complainants in the witness box. The court considered the principles of evidence and credibility, and how these principles applied to the specific circumstances of the case.

In delivering the decision, the court found that the trial judge had indeed acted on an inaccurate version of the applicant's evidence, leading to an unjust discrediting of the applicant. The court also found that the judge should have provided a direction to himself regarding the use of lies indicating consciousness of guilt, and that the judge's handling of the complainant's distressed demeanour was not appropriately considered in the context of the overall evidence. The court emphasised the importance of accurate evidence assessment and the proper application of legal principles concerning credibility and demeanour.

The final orders of the court were not detailed in the extract but would likely involve a retrial or some form of judicial review to ensure that the applicant's rights were properly safeguarded and that the evidence was assessed fairly.

Orders