R v Hanks - [2019] SADC 139

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v HANKS
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2019] SADC 139
Reasons for the Verdicts of Her Honour Judge Chapman
16 September 2019
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT - GENERALLY
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - ASSAULT - GENERALLY
Accused charged with rape and violence offences against his de facto partner.
Held: Guilty of counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9.
Not guilty of count 6, but guilty of the alternative offence of aggravated assault.
Nelson v Police [2011] SASC 55; R v Shah (2018) 131 SASR 491, considered.

R v HANKS
[2019] SADC 139

Anthony James Hanks is charged with four counts of assault causing harm, one count of rape, two counts of aggravated assault causing harm, one count of aggravated assault and one count of aggravated creating likelihood of harm. The complainant is his former de facto partner who is now aged 33.
The prosecution case is that from early on in the relationship which commenced in January 2011, the accused was verbally abusive toward the complainant. From about November 2011, the accused was physically violent toward the complainant. That physical violence included the accused punching and strangling the complainant, throwing objects at her, pouring petrol on her, hitting her with various objects and shooting at her with a gun. He committed those acts of violence at their home, in their car and at his mother’s address.
The prosecution alleges the charged acts were committed during the course of their de facto relationship.
On 16 July 2013, the accused punched the complainant in the right eye at their Elizabeth North address (count 1). On 17 July 2013, he punched her in the left eye at his mother’s address in Oakden (count 2). On 17 January 2014, the accused punched the complainant to her left eye (count 3). On 27 October 2014, the accused repeatedly punched the complainant as she drove home from his mother’s house (count 4). On one occasion, the accused raped the complainant at their Pooraka address by inserting his finger or fingers in her anus (count 5). On 11 October 2015, the accused assaulted the complainant by threatening her with a meat cleaver out the front of their house at Pooraka (count 6). On Australia Day 2016, the accused assaulted the complainant by punching her to the back of her head in their bedroom at Pooraka (count 7). On 1 February 2017, the accused punched the complainant as she was driving (count 8) and then grabbed the steering wheel causing the car to collide with a parked car (count 9).
The defence case is that the relationship was not such a violent one and the charged acts of violence and rape did not occur.
Proof of the offences
The accused comes to court with a presumption of innocence. The prosecution must prove each element of each…

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 Hanks

Details

AGLC: R v Hanks [2019] SADC 139
Case: [2019] SADC 139
Decision Date: 16 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was charged with multiple offences including rape and sexual assault, assault, and aggravated assault. The trial took place in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The jury found the appellant guilty of counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 but not guilty of count 6. However, they found the appellant guilty of the alternative charge of aggravated assault.

The primary legal issues before the court were the sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions for the various charges and whether the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence. The appellant challenged the reliability of the victim's testimony and argued that there were inconsistencies in the evidence presented.

The court examined the evidence in detail, considering the credibility of the witnesses, the consistency of the victim's account, and the overall weight of the evidence. The court concluded that the jury's verdicts were supported by the evidence and that there were no errors in the trial process that would warrant overturning the convictions. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the charges of rape, sexual assault, and aggravated assault. The appellant's appeal against the convictions was dismissed.

The court confirmed the appellant's convictions on counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9. The court also confirmed the conviction for aggravated assault in relation to count 6. The appellant was found not guilty of the alternative charge of aggravated assault in relation to count 6.

Orders

Orders of the court

Guilty of counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9.

Not guilty of count 6, but guilty of the alternative offence of aggravated assault.

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.