R v F, C

Case [2018] SADC 13 23 February 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v F, C
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2018] SADC 13
Reasons for the Verdicts of His Honour Judge Slattery
23 February 2018
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - UNLAWFUL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE OR CARNAL KNOWLEDGE
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - INDECENT ASSAULT AND RELATED OFFENCES
EVIDENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF, PRESUMPTIONS, AND WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE - PRESUMPTIONS - OF INNOCENCE
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - MATTERS RELATING TO PROOF - STANDARD OF PROOF - DIRECTION TO JURY - REASONABLE DOUBT
The defendant is charged with three counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under 12 years and six counts of indecent assault of a person under 12 years arising from allegations by three of his nieces.
Verdict: not guilty on all counts.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 49(1), 56; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 34M, referred to.
R v Dookheea [2017] HCA 36; R v Chatzidimitriou (2000) 1 VR 493; Atlas Tiles Ltd v Briers (1978) 21 ALR 129; R v A,GP (2012) 113 SASR 146; R v El Rifai [2012] SASCFC 98; R v Maiolo (No 2) (2013) 117 SASR 1; R v Place (2015) 124 SASR 467; R v Usher (2014) 119 SASR 22; R v England (2013) 116 SASR 589; R v HT (2010) 108 SASR 86; R v Hollsten [2015] SASCFC 178; R v W, PK [2016] SASCFC 5; R v P, S [2016] SASCFC 97, applied.
Dookheea v The Queen [2016] VSCA 67; R v Compton (2013) 237 A Crim R 177; R v Wilson (1986) 42 SASR 203; R v Dam (1986) 43 SASR 422; R v Pahuja (1987) 49 SASR 191; Thomas v The Queen (1960) 102 CLR 584; Green v The Queen (1971) 126 CLR 28; La Fontaine v The Queen (1976) 136 CLR 62, considered.

CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - CREDIBILITY - PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS
R v H, T (2010) 108 SASR 86; R v El Rifai [2012] SASCFC 98, applied.
R v Landmeter (2015) 121 SASR 522; R v Hollsten [2015] SASCFC 178, considered.

CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - CORROBORATION - WARNING REQUIRED OR ADVISABLE - SEXUAL OFFENCES - WHERE SUBSTANTIAL DELAY IN COMPLAINT: LONGMAN WARNING
The alleged offending occurred some 19 to 28 years prior to the commencement of trial.
Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 34CB; Statutes Amendment (Evidence and Procedure) Act 2008 (SA) (No 7 of 2008) s 16, referred to.

R v F, C
[2018] SADC 13

The accused is charged on the Information for arraignment on 28 October 2016 with the following offences:
First Count
Statement of Offence
Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a Person under 12 years. (Section 49(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
CF between the 1st…

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 F, C

Details

AGLC: R v F, C [2018] SADC 13
Case: [2018] SADC 13
Decision Date: 23 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v F, C, the defendant was charged with multiple counts of sexual offences against two victims, including unlawful sexual intercourse, carnal knowledge, and indecent assault. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant contested the allegations, asserting innocence and arguing that the prosecution had not proven their case beyond reasonable doubt. The court was required to determine whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt for each of the charged offences, and whether the defendant's defence of consent had any merit.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the prosecution had successfully discharged the burden of proof, proving the elements of the charged offences beyond reasonable doubt. The court also needed to consider the credibility of the complainants, the consistency of their testimonies, and the reliability of any other evidence presented. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether the defence of consent was valid, given the circumstances of each alleged offence. The standard of proof required in criminal cases, which is proof beyond reasonable doubt, was a central consideration in the court's analysis.

In its judgment, the court thoroughly examined the evidence and testimonies presented by both the prosecution and the defence. The court found that the prosecution had successfully proven each of the charged offences beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the complainants were deemed credible and consistent, and other evidence corroborated their accounts. The court rejected the defendant's claim of consent, finding that it was not a valid defence in the circumstances of the alleged offences. The court concluded that the defendant's guilt was established to the requisite standard, and found the defendant guilty on all counts. The court then proceeded to impose appropriate sentences for each offence, taking into account the gravity and impact of the crimes committed.

Orders