R v Helps
Case
•
[2019] SASCFC 66
•13 June 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
R v Helps [2019] SASCFC 66
[2019] SASCFC 66
13 June 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal concerned a retrial of the appellant, who had previously been convicted in 2016. Following an earlier appeal, all convictions were quashed and the matter remitted for retrial. At the retrial, the prosecution tendered an audio-visual recording of the complainant's evidence from the first trial, and the complainant also gave further oral evidence. The dispute before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, constituted by Vanstone, Kelly, and Parker JJ, was whether the trial judge had erred in her directions to herself regarding the evidence and the onus of proof.
The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had misdirected herself concerning the standard of proof required for conviction, particularly in light of the complainant's evidence being the sole evidence supporting the charges. The appellant argued that the judge had effectively reversed the onus of proof by first accepting the complainant's account as credible and reliable, and then considering whether the defence evidence raised a doubt, rather than independently assessing all evidence to satisfy the prosecution's burden beyond reasonable doubt.
The court found that the trial judge had correctly understood and applied the onus and standard of proof. The judge's directions indicated an understanding that she had to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt, and that any account given by the appellant must not be reasonably possibly true. The court noted that the judge had carefully considered all evidence, including the appellant's statements and defence evidence, and had discriminated between the complainant's evidence and the defence case. The judge's detailed examination of the evidence, count by count, and her explicit reference to the appellant's denials and previous evidence, demonstrated that she had not reversed the onus of proof.
The Full Court dismissed the appeal, with Parker J agreeing with the reasons provided by Kelly J. Permission to appeal on the first ground was refused.
The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had misdirected herself concerning the standard of proof required for conviction, particularly in light of the complainant's evidence being the sole evidence supporting the charges. The appellant argued that the judge had effectively reversed the onus of proof by first accepting the complainant's account as credible and reliable, and then considering whether the defence evidence raised a doubt, rather than independently assessing all evidence to satisfy the prosecution's burden beyond reasonable doubt.
The court found that the trial judge had correctly understood and applied the onus and standard of proof. The judge's directions indicated an understanding that she had to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt, and that any account given by the appellant must not be reasonably possibly true. The court noted that the judge had carefully considered all evidence, including the appellant's statements and defence evidence, and had discriminated between the complainant's evidence and the defence case. The judge's detailed examination of the evidence, count by count, and her explicit reference to the appellant's denials and previous evidence, demonstrated that she had not reversed the onus of proof.
The Full Court dismissed the appeal, with Parker J agreeing with the reasons provided by Kelly J. Permission to appeal on the first ground was refused.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
-
Evidence
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Charge
-
Sentencing
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
R v Helps [2019] SASCFC 66
Most Recent Citation
Helps v The Queen (No 3) [2021] SASCFC 10
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
1
R v H, CS
[2016] SADC 23
R v Helps
[2016] SASCFC 154
Bromley v The Queen
[1986] HCA 49