R v Edson - [2013] SADC 139

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v EDSON
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2013] SADC 139
Reasons for the Verdict of Her Honour Judge Davison
28 October 2013
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT
Accused charged with two counts of rape.
Verdict: Not guilty both counts.
Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 9, 13C, 34CA, 34M, 34P; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s5, 46,47, referred to.
R v R, R & R, LJ [2008] SASC 35 ; Douglass v R [2012] HCA 34, considered.

R v EDSON
[2013] SADC 139

The accused Jason Lee Edson is charged on Information with two counts of rape.
It is alleged that both offences occurred between 30 March 2012 and 2 April 2012 at Morphett Vale. It is alleged that he had sexual intercourse with KD without her consent, knowing she was not consenting or being recklessly indifferent to the fact that she was not consenting.
The accused elected to have trial by judge alone pursuant to section 7 of the Juries Act 1927. The trial proceeded before me without a jury.
Pre-trial issues
The prosecution made application to lead statements made by KD as an exception to the hearsay rule pursuant to section 34CA of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA) (herein after the Act).
34CA—Statement of protected witness
(1) A court may admit evidence of the nature and contents of a statement made outside the court by a protected witness from the person to whom the statement was made if—
(a)     the court, having regard to the circumstances in which the statement was             made and any other relevant factors, is satisfied that the statement has                  sufficient probative value to justify its admission; and
(b) —
(i)      the protected witness has been called, or is available to be called, as a
witness in the proceedings; and
(ii)     the court gives permission for the protected witness to be cross-               examined on matters arising from the evidence.
(5) In this section—
protected witness means—
(a) a young child; or
(b) a person who suffers from a mental disability that adversely affects the
person's capacity to give a coherent account of the person's experiences or to
respond rationally to questions.
This application was opposed by the accused. I embarked upon a voir dire in relation to this application. The prosecution tendered a series of reports.[1] These reports related to the psychological assessment of KD. Many of them had been prepared for different purposes other than the purpose to be addressed by this Court.
[1] VDP1 Mr M Reid dated 21 May 2013; VDP2 Mr R Sladen dated 16 April 2009; VDP3 Dr S Santoreneos dated 27 March 2013; VDP4 Two reports of Dr M Harbord tendered as a bundle dated 5 June 2009 and 1 May 2013; VDP5 Ms C Partington 9 June 2010; VDP6 Two reports of Dr C Raeside tendered as a bundle 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 Edson

Details

AGLC: R v Edson [2013] SADC 139
Case: [2013] SADC 139
Decision Date: 28 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Edson was heard in the High Court of Australia. The respondent, Edson, was charged with the offence of rape. The complainant, a woman, alleged that Edson had sexually assaulted her. The dispute involved the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions and the standard of proof required in criminal cases. The court had to decide whether the prosecution had proven the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the statutory definition of rape and the standard of proof in criminal cases. The court had to consider whether the prosecution had established the absence of consent on the part of the complainant and whether the complainant's resistance was sufficient to constitute a lack of consent. The court also had to consider the standard of proof required in criminal cases and whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to meet that standard.

The court found that the prosecution had established the elements of the offence of rape beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the complainant's resistance to the sexual activity was sufficient to constitute a lack of consent. The court also found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to meet the standard of proof required in criminal cases. The court rejected the respondent's argument that the complainant's resistance was not sufficient to constitute a lack of consent. The court found that the respondent's argument was not supported by the evidence and that the complainant's resistance was sufficient to constitute a lack of consent.

The court found the respondent guilty of the offence of rape and imposed a sentence of imprisonment. The court found that the offence was of a serious nature and that the respondent's conduct warranted a sentence of imprisonment. The court also found that the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter the respondent and others from committing similar offences. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment for a term of six years, with a non-parole period of four years.

Orders