R v Helps - [2018] SADC 63

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v HELPS
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2018] SADC 63
Reasons for the Verdicts of Her Honour Judge S David
19 June 2018
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES
Accused charged with sexual offences, and an offence of violence, against daughter of his domestic partner - alleged offending over a five year period between 2005 and 2010 - other uncharged conduct - initial complaint to boyfriend in 2011 or 2012 - accused interviewed by police in 2014 - accused denied offences in interview - trial by judge alone - retrial.
Meaning of 'guardian' - accused not the guardian of complainant - aggravating circumstance alleged in counts 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10 not proved.
Held: Guilty as charged of counts 1, 2, 3, 6 and 9. Not guilty of charged offences of Aggravated Indecent Assault but guilty of Indecent Assault on counts 4, 5, 7 and 8. Not guilty of charged offence of Aggravated Assault but guilty of Assault on count 10.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 5, 5AA(g)(iv)(c), 20(3), 34P(2), 34P(3), 49(1), 49(3), 49(7), 56, 58, 57(2); Evidence Act 1929 (SA) ss 13D(1), 34M4(a), 34M4(b), referred to.
G and Another (1997) 91 A Crim R 590, considered.

R v HELPS
[2018] SADC 63

Craig Stewart Helps (‘the accused’) is charged with numerous sexual offences, and an offence of violence, against his de facto partner’s daughter from 2005 until 2010. The accused is charged with three counts of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a Person Under 14, contrary to s 49(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (‘CLCA’) (counts 1, 2, 3); four counts of Aggravated Indecent Assault, contrary to s 56 of the CLCA (counts 4, 5, 7, 8); one count of Gross Indecency, contrary to s 58 of the CLCA (count 6); one count of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse, contrary to s 49(3) of the CLCA (count 9); and one count of Aggravated Assault, contrary to s 20(3) of the CLCA (count 10).
The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and elected for trial without a jury. I now publish reasons for the verdicts I deliver.
Overview
The prosecution case is the accused sexually interfered with the complainant (‘CN’) over a period of about five years from 2005 until 2010. CN was born on 4 April 1995, and was aged from 10 to 15 during the charged period. The accused is the de facto partner of CN’s mother. The accused lived with CN and her family at residences in Kurralta Park and Blanchetown during the charged period. CN left the family home when she was aged 15, and moved in with her older sister (‘NT’), after which time she lived with her biological father (‘SN’), and former partner (‘JG’).
CN also alleged the accused committed other uncharged sexual acts upon her during the charged period, in particular ‘big hugs’ involving CN lying or sitting on top of the accused and the…

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 Helps

Details

AGLC: R v Helps [2018] SADC 63
Case: [2018] SADC 63
Decision Date: 19 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Helps involved the accused, who was charged with various sexual offences and an offence of violence against his domestic partner's daughter. The alleged offending occurred over a period of five years, from 2005 to 2010, with other uncharged conduct also coming to light. A complaint was initially made to the accused's boyfriend in either 2011 or 2012, leading to the accused being interviewed by police in 2014. During this interview, the accused denied all the charges against him. The matter proceeded to a trial by judge alone, followed by a retrial.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was the meaning of the term 'guardian' as it applied to the accused's relationship with the complainant. The prosecution argued that the accused was the guardian of the complainant, which would have been an aggravating factor in the charges against him. However, the court found that the accused was not, in fact, the guardian of the complainant, and thus, the aggravating circumstance could not be proven in relation to certain counts.

The court examined the definitions and legal criteria for being considered a guardian and concluded that the accused did not meet the requirements. This finding was crucial in the determination of the charges, as it affected the severity of the penalties that could be imposed. Consequently, the court found that the aggravating circumstance alleged in counts 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10 was not proved.

Given the findings regarding the definition of 'guardian', the court had to re-evaluate the charges against the accused. The outcome of this case highlights the importance of accurately defining legal terms and the impact such definitions can have on the outcome of criminal proceedings.

Orders