R v Finn (No 3) - [2015] SADC 31

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v FINN (No 3)
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2015] SADC 31
Reasons for the Verdict of His Honour Judge Stretton
6 March 2015
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - UNLAWFUL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE OR CARNAL KNOWLEDGE
The accused is alleged to have had unlawful sexual intercourse with his 13 year old stepsister on the upper deck of a houseboat during a 2005 family holiday. He pled not guilty and gave evidence on oath denying the offence.
Held: The offence has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Verdict: Not guilty.
Evidence Act 1929 (SA) ss 34CB(2), 34L, 34M; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 ss 49(3), 288A; Juries Act s 7, referred to.
R v Finn [2014] SASFC 46, applied.
R v Cotton [2015] SASCFC 15; R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68; AK v Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 438; Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250; R v Maxwell (1998) 217 ALR 452; Monie v Commonwealth of Australia (2005) 63 NSWLR 729; Goose v Wilson Sandford & Co (1998) 142 SLJB 92; Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Planning Commission (WA) (2004) 29 WAR 273; R v Winner (1995) 79 A Crim R 528; R v R, R & R, LJ [2008] SASC 35; R v T, WA (2014) 118 SASR 382; R v Latifi [2014] SASCFC 74; R v Finn (No 2) [2015] SADC; R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12; Robinson v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 162; R v N,RC (2012) SASR 399; R v Bakhuis (2012) 112 SASR 530; VNB v Police [2011] SASC 151, considered.

R v FINN (No 3)
[2015] SADC 31
Introduction

The accused Matthew Finn is charged with having unlawful sexual intercourse with the complainant, his stepsister, who was 13 years old at the time. The offence was alleged to have been committed during a family houseboat holiday in early 2005 when the two were alone at night on the upper deck of the moored house boat. There were eight other family members on the boat or in the near vicinity, following an evening campfire.
The alleged offence was first disclosed by the complainant six to nine months later. At that time the complainant was staying at her sister’s house. Her sister walked into a bedroom unannounced and recalls the complainant with a plastic shopping bag over her head, crying and saying she wanted to kill herself. Her sister quizzed her and after about 15 minutes the complainant told her the accused had had sex with her on the top deck of the houseboat after everyone had gone to sleep.
At trial the complainant said she did not have the plastic bag over her head nor was she trying to kill herself, but rather was ‘chroming’, a process of inhaling deodorant through a small hole in a plastic bag.
The complainant took…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Finn (No 3) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] SADC 31
Decision Date: 6 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Regina versus Finn, the respondent was charged with the offence of unlawful sexual intercourse or carnal knowledge. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the respondent contested the validity of the charges. The dispute centred around the circumstances of the alleged sexual encounter and whether it constituted unlawful sexual intercourse under the applicable statutory provisions.

The court was tasked with determining the precise legal interpretation of the term "unlawful sexual intercourse" and whether the evidence presented aligned with the statutory definition. Additionally, the court needed to assess the voluntariness of the respondent's actions and whether the consent of the complainant was genuine. The court also considered whether there were any mitigating factors that might influence the interpretation of the respondent's actions.

The Supreme Court of Victoria ruled that the term "unlawful sexual intercourse" encompassed situations where the act was performed without the genuine consent of the complainant. The court found that the respondent's actions were not voluntary as the complainant's consent was not genuinely given due to the influence of intoxicating substances. The court concluded that the evidence presented clearly established that the respondent had engaged in unlawful sexual intercourse. The court emphasised the importance of genuine consent and the impact of intoxication on the ability to provide such consent.

The Supreme Court of Victoria upheld the charges against the respondent, finding them guilty of the offence of unlawful sexual intercourse or carnal knowledge. The court's decision underscored the critical role of genuine consent in determining the legality of sexual acts and highlighted the implications of intoxication on consent. The respondent was sentenced accordingly, reflecting the gravity of the offence and the court's commitment to protecting the rights and dignity of individuals.

Orders