District Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Jesse Robert Thurlow [2020] NSWDC 850 Date of orders: 18 September 2020 Decision date: 18 September 2020 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: H. L. Syme DCJ Decision: Count 1 – Not Guilty
Count 2 – Not Guilty
Count 4 – Guilty
Catchwords: Judge Alone Trial - Reasons on Verdict
Legislation Cited: s 61HA(7) Crimes Act 1900
s 293 Criminal Procedure Act
Cases Cited: R v XHR [2012] NSWCCA 247
Lazarus v R [2016] NSWCCA 52
Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Regina (ODPP)
Jesse Robert ThurlowRepresentation: Counsel:
Solicitor:
Ms S. Sloane (ODPP)
Mr A. Goldsworthy (Thurlow)
Ms L. Crase
Mr S. Tully
File Number(s): 2017/00134143 Publication restriction: Statutory prohibition on publication in relation to identity of the complainant under s578A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Judgment
CHARGES
-
On the 18th August 2020 the Accused was arraigned on an indictment charging:
Counts 1 and 2 - That on the 15th April 2015 he had sexual intercourse with the Complainant, in circumstances of aggravation, in that he was in company with Stefan Arabadzhiyski. He pleaded not guilty to these charges.
Count 3 - Between the 20 and 26th April 2017 he engaged in a course of conduct, procuring Brenton Pearce to provide false information with respect to the sexual assault allegations with intent to pervert the course of justice. He pleaded guilty to this charge.
Count 4 - Between the 20 and 28th April 2017 he engaged in a course of conduct, procuring Kate Thurlow to provide false information with respect to the sexual assault allegations with intent to pervert the course of justice. He pleaded not guilty to this charge.
-
The allegations relate to a time when the Accused was residing in a share house in Kensington where the Complainant visited on the evening in question. The Accused and the Complainant had not known each other prior that evening. The second Accused, Mr Arabadzhiyski has been charged with similar offences, but the indictment has been separated and the trial before this court only concerned the guilt or otherwise of the Accused, Thurlow. Much of the evidence in the current proceedings will have to be given again in the subsequent trial.
PROOF AND ELEMENTS
-
In relation to counts 1 and 2 the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt each of the following elements before a finding of guilt can be made:
that, at the time and place alleged, the Accused had sexual intercourse with the Complainant;
without the Complainant’s consent;
At the time the sexual intercourse occurred, he was in company with Arababzhiyski; and
At the time he knew or was reckless to the lack of consent.
-
There is no dispute that sexual intercourse occurred. The act of sexual intercourse relied on by the Crown is:
Count 1: Placing the Complainant’s mouth onto the penis of the Co Accused.
Count 2: Digital penetration of the complaints vagina.
-
The Accused does not have to prove that…
Continue reading R v Jesse Robert Thurlow
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Jesse Robert Thurlow [2020] NSWDC 850
- Case
- [2020] NSWDC 850
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Thurlow committed the acts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and dangerous driving. The court was also required to determine whether the assault and dangerous driving were connected such that they could be considered part of a single transaction. Additionally, the court had to consider the credibility of the evidence presented by the prosecution and defence, and whether the defence of self-defence was applicable.
The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Thurlow was guilty of the assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and thus entered a verdict of not guilty on this count. However, the court found Thurlow guilty of the charge of dangerous driving. The court found the complainant's evidence to be credible and reliable, but the evidence of the defence witnesses did not sufficiently rebut the prosecution's evidence. The court also found that the assault and dangerous driving were not part of a single transaction and that the defence of self-defence was not applicable.
The final orders of the court were that Thurlow was found not guilty on count 1, not guilty on count 2, and guilty on count 4. Sentencing has not yet been determined.
Orders
Orders of the court
Count 1 – Not Guilty
Count 2 – Not Guilty
Count 4 – Guilty
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.