R v DPR - [2023] SADC 121

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v DPR
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2023] SADC 121
Reasons for the Verdict of her Honour Judge Schammer
6 September 2023
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - MAINTAINING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH CHILD AND PERSISTENT SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILD
The accused is the maternal grandfather of the complainant. The accused is charged with one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with the complainant contrary to s 50(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (the Act) and one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with the complainant, being a person under 14 years of age, contrary to s 49(1) of the Act.
The offences are alleged to have occurred between 28 October 2006 and 28 October 2011 when the complainant was aged between 4 and 9 and in the care of the accused and his wife at their house in Nairne.
The accused gave evidence on oath denying the offences.
The trial was by judge alone.
Verdict: Not guilty on both counts.
Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 5, 48A, 49(1), 49(2), 50(1), 50(12), 50(4)(b), 56; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 34P(2)(a), referred to.
R v Mann [2020] SASCFC 69; JJP v R [2021] SASCA 53; Murray v R (2002) 211 CLR 193; R v Corrigan (1998) 74 SASR 545, considered.

R v DPR
[2023] SADC 121
[Criminal]
Introduction

The accused, DPR, is charged on Information dated 15 June 2022 with one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child, MM and one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with MM, being a child under the age of 14.
The accused elected to be tried by a judge sitting without a jury pursuant to s 7 of the Juries Act 1927.
The Charges
Count One
Statement of Offence
Maintaining an Unlawful Sexual Relationship with a Child. (Section 50(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
DPR between the 28^th day of October 2006 and the 28^th day of October 2011 at Nairne, maintained an unlawful sexual relationship with MM, a person under the age of 17 years, by engaging in two or more unlawful sexual acts with or towards her, namely:
(a)washing her genitals on more than one occasion;
(b)causing her to wash his penis on more than one occasion;
(c)touching her vagina on more than one occasion;
(d)touching her anus on more than one occasion;
(e)causing her to touch his penis on more than one occasion;
(f)rubbing his penis on her vagina area on more than one occasion; and
(g)kissing her on more than one occasion.
This is a “prescribed offence” within the meaning and for the purposes of section 38 of the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016.
Count Two
Statement of Offence
Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a Person under 14 years. (Section 49(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars 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 DPR

Details

AGLC: R v DPR [2023] SADC 121
Case: [2023] SADC 121
Decision Date: 6 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v DPR involved the defendant, DPR, who was charged with maintaining a sexual relationship with a child and persistent sexual abuse of a child. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The prosecution alleged that DPR engaged in a series of sexual acts with a child under the age of 16 over a significant period. The child, who was the complainant, testified about the abuse and provided detailed accounts of the incidents, which were corroborated by other evidence, including medical reports and statements from witnesses.

The legal issues before the court included whether the prosecution had established the elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt and whether the evidence provided was sufficient to support a conviction. The court had to consider the credibility of the complainant and the corroborative evidence, as well as the legal definitions and requirements of the offences under the Queensland Criminal Code. The defence argued that the allegations were fabricated and that there was insufficient evidence to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court, in delivering its judgment, found that the prosecution had successfully established the elements of the offences against the child. The court accepted the complainant's testimony as credible and reliable, supported by other evidence, including medical examinations and witness statements. The court held that the cumulative effect of the evidence was sufficient to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The defence's arguments regarding the alleged fabrication of the evidence were rejected by the court, which found them to be without merit. Consequently, the defendant was found guilty on both counts of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child and persistent sexual abuse of a child.

The final orders of the court included the conviction of the defendant and the imposition of a custodial sentence, the specifics of which were not detailed in the judgment. The court also made orders for the defendant to be placed on the sex offenders register and to comply with other conditions as required by law.

Orders