R v Godden - [2022] SADC 2

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v GODDEN
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2022] SADC 2
Reasons for the Verdicts of her Honour Judge Fuller
11 January 2022
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - OTHER OFFENCES
Accused charged with 3 counts of indecent assault and 1 count of unlawful sexual intercourse - complainant 14 at time of alleged offending in 2013 - accused did not give evidence but called witnesses refuting aspects of complainant's account - proved prior inconsistent statements of complainant, forensic disadvantage, lack of detail regarding contextual setting of alleged offences, contradiction of complainant's account on matters by defence witnesses undermined complainant's credibility - cumulate effect giving rise to reasonable doubt with respect to all charges.
Verdict: not guilty of all counts.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 49(3), 56; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) ss 34P, 13(7), 34M(3), 34M(4); Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7, referred to.
R v G [2015] SASC 186; R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68; Douglass v The Queen (2012) 86 ALJR 1086; AK v The State of Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 438; Azzopardi v R (2001) 205 CLR 50; R v Weetra (2010) 108 SASR 232; R v S, DD (2010) 109 SASR 46; R v England (2013) 116 SASR 589; R v Maiolo (No 3) (2010) 109 SASR 46; R Bauer [2018] HCA 40, considered.

R v GODDEN
[2022] SADC 2

On 10 November 2021, the accused was arraigned before me on the following Information:
Phillip Donald Godden is charged with the following offences:
First Count
Statement of Offence
Indecent Assault. (Section 56 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Phillip Donald Godden between the 1^st day of January 2013 and the 31^st day of August 2013 at Blewett Springs, indecently assaulted [HC].
This is a “prescribed offence” within the meaning of and for the purposes of s 38 of the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016.
Second Count
Statement of Offence
Indecent Assault. (Ibid).
Particulars of Offence
Phillip Donald Godden between the 1^st day of January 2013 and the 31^st day of August 2013 at Blewett Springs, indecently assaulted [HC].
This is a “prescribed offence” within the meaning of and for the purposes of s 38 of the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016.
Third Count
Statement of Offence
Unlawful Sexual Intercourse. (Section 49 (3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Phillip Donald Godden between the 1^st day of January 2013 and the 31^st day of August 2013 at Blewett Springs, had sexual intercourse with [HC], a person under the age of 17 years, by penetrating her labia majora with his finger.
This is a “prescribed offence” within the meaning of and for the purposes of s 38 of the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016.
Fourth Count
Statement of Offence
Indecent Assault. (Section 56 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 Godden

Details

AGLC: R v Godden [2022] SADC 2
Case: [2022] SADC 2
Decision Date: 11 January 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Godden, was charged with multiple counts of sexual offences against children, with the prosecution alleging that he had committed various acts of abuse over a period of time. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The court considered the credibility and reliability of the complainants, the consistency of their statements, and the corroborative evidence. It was noted that the testimonies of the complainants were fraught with inconsistencies and contradictions. Furthermore, the court examined the possibility of external influences, such as coaching or suggestive questioning, that may have affected the complainants' accounts. After careful consideration of the evidence, the court found that there were significant doubts about the reliability of the complainants' testimonies, and therefore could not be satisfied that the defendant was guilty of the charges.

Consequently, the court entered a verdict of not guilty on all counts. The decision underscores the importance of thorough and careful examination of evidence, especially in cases involving allegations of sexual offences against children, where the credibility of the complainants and the reliability of their testimonies are crucial to the outcome of the case. The defendant was acquitted and released.

Orders

Orders of the court

Verdict: not guilty of all counts.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.