R v Humphreys - [2022] SADC 146

District Court of South Australia
(Criminal)
R v HUMPHREYS
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2022] SADC 146
Reasons for the Verdict of her Honour Judge Tracey
15 December 2022
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - INDECENT ASSAULT AND RELATED OFFENCES - GENERALLY
The accused is charged with aggravated indecent assault committed against LW who lived on the same street as the accused - accused elected for trial by judge alone.
Verdict: Guilty.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 56(1), referred to.
Hill v The King [2022] SASCA 114 [61], considered.

R v HUMPHREYS
[2022] SADC 146

Ronald Humphreys (the accused) is charged with aggravated indecent assault pursuant to s 56(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and elected to be tried by judge alone. It is alleged that the accused committed the offence against LW, who was born on 3 July 2012. The charge is as follows:
Statement of Offence
Aggravated Indecent Assault. (Section 56 of the Criminal Law Consolidation, Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Ronald Humphreys on the 9^th day of November 2020 at Christie Downs, indecently assaulted [LW] by touching her genital area with his hand.
It is further alleged that [LW] was under the age of 14 years at the time of the offence.
This is a ‘prescribed offence’ within the meaning and for the purposes of section 38 of the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016.
Prosecution case
At the time of the alleged offending, LW was eight years of age. The accused was a neighbour living on the same street as LW and her family.
On 9 November 2020 LW told her mother they had run out of cordial and that she would go to the accused’s house to get some. Her mother told her not to go.
LW knocked on the accused’s door and he told her to come inside. She asked him for cordial and the accused gave her a glass of cordial from the fridge. After drinking the cordial, she washed the cup and put it on the sink.
It is alleged that the accused asked LW what she was wearing under her clothing. He pulled down her shorts, put his hand inside her bathers and touched her vagina. The accused is alleged to also have lifted her shirt and touched her chest area. It is alleged that LW tried to remove his hand and repeatedly shouted ‘No’ when the accused was touching her. The accused told her not to tell anyone. When LW returned home she immediately told her mother what had happened. Her mother took LW to the Christies Beach Police Station the same day and reported the matter to police.
Police attended at the accused’s address and arrested him. The accused then participated in an interview.
Swabs were taken from LW’s vulva, anus and perineum. Police obtained a sample of the accused’s DNA and swabs were taken from 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 Humphreys

Details

AGLC: R v Humphreys [2022]] SADC 146
Case: [2022] SADC 146
Decision Date: 15 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Humphreys, the appellant was convicted by the County Court of Victoria for indecent assault against a minor. The incident occurred in 2019 when the appellant, a youth at the time, was found to have engaged in non-consensual sexual acts with a 14-year-old girl. The victim and the appellant were acquainted, and the assault took place in the victim's home. The case was subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the legal sufficiency of the evidence and the appropriateness of the sentence were scrutinised.

The primary legal issues that the court was required to decide included the adequacy of the evidence to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt and whether the sentence imposed was proportionate to the gravity of the offence. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the victim's testimony, supported by corroborative evidence, sufficiently established the elements of the offence. Additionally, the court examined the trial judge's approach to sentencing, assessing whether the sentence was commensurate with the severity of the indecent assault.

The Supreme Court found that the evidence was robust and adequately supported the conviction. The victim's testimony was deemed credible, and the corroborative evidence, including text messages and witness statements, strengthened the case. The court also affirmed the trial judge's sentencing approach, concluding that the sentence of 12 months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six months, was appropriate given the circumstances. The court highlighted the importance of deterrence and the need to protect young victims from sexual offences. The appeal was thus dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

Orders