R v JDH - [2025] SADC 78

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v JDH
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2025] SADC 78
Reasons for the Verdict of her Honour Judge Schammer
2 July 2025
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - PROPENSITY, TENDENCY AND CO-INCIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY - PROPENSITY EVIDENCE - EVIDENCE OF UNCHARGED ACTS
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - CREDIBILITY - GENERALLY
The accused is charged on Information dated 8 November 2023 with five counts for sexual offending against four separate complainants, namely:
• three counts of sexual abuse of a child pursuant to s 50(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935 (the Act), wherein the complainants are the accused’s female step grandchildren, MR, AJB and TLR (counts 1, 2 and 4);
• one count of indecent assault pursuant to s 56 of the Act, wherein the complainant is TLR (count 5); and
• one count of aggravated indecent assault with a person under the age of 14 years pursuant to s 56 of the Act, wherein the complainant is JAK, a female school friend of MR (count 3).
The offending is alleged to have occurred at various locations. Those locations include a house in Blakeview, where the accused lived with his wife, MJH, the maternal grandmother of MR, AJB and TLR. The offending is also alleged to have occurred at the Craigmore home where MR and TLR lived during the relevant period(s), in a car at various locations and at a beach.
The prosecution case is that the accused engaged in opportunistic, sometimes brazen and risky sexual abuse, against all four complainants, with the most serious of the offending occurring against the youngest of the three complainants, TLR.
The allegations made by each complainant are different, albeit they contain some similarities. The prosecution did not seek to rely on similarity of account/improbability reasoning.
The offending ranged in seriousness from touching the complainants on the bottom when hugging them, to engaging in cunnilingus with TLR.
The circumstances ancillary to the alleged offending were, in most respects, not in dispute. Rather, the defence case was, insofar as the more minor allegations were concerned, that innocent, innocuous touching of each complainant had been misconstrued in circumstances where the accused was simply an overly affectionate step grandfather. As to the more serious alleged offending, it was submitted that much of it was implausible or impossible, having regard to the likelihood of it being detected.
Various items of interest were seized by police after the accused’s arrests. One was an SD card, which contained deleted images of child exploitation material created by placing photographs of each complainant’s face onto the bodies of naked models, some engaging in sex acts, and then taking a photograph of such images. The SD card also included three deleted photographs, each taken at about the same time, which depicted TLR, aged approximately six or seven, wearing pyjamas, asleep on a mattress…

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 JDH

Details

AGLC: R v JDH [2025] SADC 78
Case: [2025] SADC 78
Decision Date: 2 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v JDH was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the appellant, JDH, was charged with sexual offences against a minor. The trial judge convicted the appellant, who now appealed against the conviction on several grounds, including the admissibility of propensity evidence and the reliability of the victim's testimony. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the trial judge erred in admitting certain evidence and whether the conviction was supported by the evidence.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge erred in admitting propensity evidence and whether the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory due to the reliability of the victim's testimony. The appellant argued that the evidence of past uncharged sexual acts was inadmissible as it was irrelevant and prejudicial. Additionally, the appellant contended that the trial judge did not properly assess the credibility of the victim's testimony and that the conviction was not supported by the evidence.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not err in admitting the propensity evidence, as it was relevant to the issue of identity and had significant probative value. The court found that the evidence was properly weighed against its prejudicial effect, and the trial judge did not err in admitting it. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge properly assessed the credibility of the victim's testimony and that the conviction was supported by the evidence. The court held that the appellant's arguments did not undermine the reliability of the victim's testimony or the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge correctly admitted the propensity evidence and properly assessed the credibility of the victim's testimony. The court held that the conviction was supported by the evidence, and no miscarriage of justice occurred.

Orders