R v Helmons - [2024] SADC 127

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v HELMONS
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2024] SADC 127
Reasons for the Verdict of her Honour Judge Telfer
16 October 2024
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - UNLAWFUL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH A CHILD UNDER 14
The accused was charged with unlawful sexual intercourse with a child under 14, the complainant being his stepdaughter. The prosecution alleged that the accused was inappropriately affectionate towards the complainant and relied on a number of uncharged acts of sexual abuse which were alleged to have been committed during outings that the accused took the complainant on. It was common ground that the complainant often slept in bed with the accused and his wife. It was alleged that on one occasion when they were sharing a bed the accused engaged in penile intercourse with the complainant. The complainant disclosed the matter to her mother after the relationship between her and the accused had ended, but had previously expressed affection for and emotional reliance on the accused.
Verdict: Not Guilty.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 49(1), referred to.
R v Winner (1995) 79 A Crim R 528; R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68, considered.

R v HELMONS
[2024] SADC 127
R v HELMONS

The accused Wayne John Helmons is charged with one count of unlawful sexual intercourse. He elected for trial by judge alone on the first day of the trial and I granted the application to make a late election. I granted that application being satisfied, by evidence on affidavit from his solicitor, that the accused had not been given any legal advice at all about his right to elect for trial by judge alone at any time.
The complainant in the matter is the accused’s former stepdaughter who I will refer to in these reasons as Lilly. Lilly was 13 at the time of the alleged offence. The accused met Lilly’s Mother Ms R in about 2015 and the two were married in February 2018. Lilly is the eldest of Ms R’s three children, the younger two both being boys. The blended family lived in a number of different houses together, including a home at Shelley Avenue Marion, where the offence is alleged to have occurred.
It was common ground that by 2020 Lilly was regularly sharing a bed with her mother and the accused. The accused would be positioned in the middle and Ms R and Lilly to each side of him. It is alleged that one night in these circumstances the accused engaged in an act of penile vaginal penetration with Lilly. Lilly did not complain about the matter until sometime in 2023 when she told her mother. By that time the marriage had ended and the accused was in custody on other matters.
The prosecution relied on a number of uncharged acts of sexualised behaviour to place the charged behaviour into a proper context and to explain Lilly’s reaction to the charged conduct 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 Helmons

Details

AGLC: R v Helmons [2024] SADC 127
Case: [2024] SADC 127
Decision Date: 16 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant was charged with two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a child under the age of fourteen, contrary to section 33(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the defendant contested the charges. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant engaged in sexual acts with the child on the dates alleged.

The court examined the evidence provided by the prosecution, including testimonies from the child, medical examinations, and expert opinions. The child's testimony was found to be credible and consistent, supported by medical evidence that indicated sexual activity had occurred. The court also considered the defendant's denial and his lack of a credible explanation for the injuries observed. The court held that the prosecution had met its burden of proof, establishing the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the court found the defendant guilty on both counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a child under fourteen. The defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the severity of the crimes and the need to protect the community. The decision underscored the importance of protecting children from sexual abuse and the court's commitment to ensuring justice for victims of such offences.

Orders