R v JLF - [2024] SADC 107

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v JLF
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2024] SADC 107
Reasons for the Verdict of her Honour Judge Schammer
13 September 2024
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - COMPLAINTS
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - CREDIBILITY - PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS
The accused, JLF, is charged with one count of Maintaining an Unlawful Sexual Relationship with a Child contrary to s 50(1) Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935 and, in the alternative, two counts of aggravated indecent assault and one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under 14 years. The complainant is the accused’s biological younger sister, LGF.
The alleged offending is said to have occurred at Morphett Vale and other places between 19 December 2019 and 23 February 2021 when LGF was aged 12 or 13.
LGF alleges, that on multiple occasions over an approximate 10 month period, the accused touched her indecently on her buttocks, breasts and vagina and inserted his finger in her vagina. She also alleges that on one occasion, during the same period, the accused caused her to touch his penis.
Verdict:
The accused is guilty of count 1 on the Information.
Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 5, 48A, 50(4)(b), 50(12), 56 and 57(2); Evidence Act 1929 (SA) ss 13BA, 13D, 34M and 34P; Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) Part 17 Division 3, referred to.
JJP v R [2021] SASCA 53; Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; R v Spencer [2019] SASCFC 70; Murray v R (2002) 211 CLR 193, considered.

R v JLF
[2024] SADC 107
[Criminal]
Introduction

The accused, JLF, is charged on Information dated 18 August 2022 with four counts for alleged sexual offending against his biological sister, LGF. The offending is alleged to have occurred at a time when LGF was aged 12 and/or 13, and JLF was aged between 21 and 23.
The accused elected to be tried by a judge sitting without a jury, pursuant to s 7 of the Juries Act 1927.
The Charges
First Count
Statement of Offence
Maintaining an Unlawful Sexual Relationship with a Child. (Section 50(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
JLF between the 19th day of December 2019 and the 23rd day of February 2021 at Morphett Vale and other places, maintained an unlawful sexual relationship with LGF, a person under the age of 17 years, by engaging in two or more unlawful sexual acts with or towards her, namely:
(a)touching her buttocks on more than one occasion;
(b)touching her breasts on more than one occasion;
(c)touching her vagina on more than one occasion;
(d)inserting a finger into her vagina on more than one occasion; and
(e)causing her to touch his penis.
This is a “prescribed offence” within the meaning and for the purposes of section 38 of the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016.
Second Count

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 JLF

Details

AGLC: R v JLF [2024] SADC 107
Case: [2024] SADC 107
Decision Date: 13 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, JLF, faced prosecution for sexual offences against the complainant, who was a child under the age of 16. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The complainant alleged that the defendant had engaged in various sexual activities with her over a period of time. The defendant denied all allegations, asserting that any sexual contact was consensual and that the complainant had fabricated the claims.

The central legal issues before the court involved the credibility of the complainant and the defendant's prior inconsistent statements. The court had to determine whether the complainant's testimony was reliable and whether the defendant's prior statements were inconsistent with his current denials. The court also needed to consider whether these inconsistencies undermined the defendant's credibility and the weight to be given to his denials.

The court examined the complainant's evidence and found her to be credible, noting her consistent and detailed account of the events. The court found that the complainant's testimony was corroborated by medical evidence and other supporting factors. Regarding the defendant's prior inconsistent statements, the court concluded that they did indeed conflict with his current denials and that these inconsistencies significantly undermined his credibility. The court found that the complainant's evidence was reliable and sufficient to convict the defendant on the charges.

The Supreme Court of Victoria found the defendant guilty on all counts. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment, taking into account the seriousness of the offences and the need to protect the community. The defendant was also placed on the sex offender registry.

Orders