R v JM - [2025] SADC 53

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v JM
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2025] SADC 53
Reasons for the Verdicts of his Honour Judge Barklay
13 May 2025
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT
The accused is charged with two counts of rape contrary to s 48(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA).
It is alleged that the accused raped the complainant by inserting his finger into her vagina, and then his penis, without her consent, knowing that she was not consenting, or being recklessly indifferent as to whether she consented.
Verdict: Not Guilty.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 47, 48(1); Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 34N, referred to.
R v T,S (2017) 128 SASR 66, 89 (Hinton J); Burns v R (1975) 132 CLR 258, considered.

R v JM
[2025] SADC 53

The accused, JM is charged with two counts of rape pursuant to s 48(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). JM pleaded not guilty and elected to be tried by judge alone.
The two counts of rape relate to an occasion when JM put his fingers (Count 1) and then his penis (Count 2) inside the complainant, GS’s vagina. There is no dispute that he did so. There is no dispute that GS did not consent to sexual intercourse. The central issue is whether the prosecution have proved that JM knew that she was not consenting or was recklessly indifferent about that fact.
For reasons that follow, I find the accused not guilty of both counts of rape.
I will refer to GS as the complainant and JM as the accused for ease of reference.
The charges
I set out the charges.
First Count
Statement of Offence
Rape. Section 48(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
JM between the 4^th day of December 2020 and the 10^th day of December 2020 at Blakeview, had sexual intercourse with GS by inserting a finger into her vagina, without her consent, knowing that she was not consenting to that act of sexual intercourse, or being recklessly indifferent as to whether she consented.
Second Count
Statement of Offence
Rape. (Section 48(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
JM between the 4^th day of December 2020 and the 10^th day of December 2020 at Blakeview, had sexual intercourse with GS by inserting his penis into her vagina, without her consent, knowing that she was not consenting to the act of sexual intercourse, or being recklessly indifferent as to whether she consented.
Elements of offence
All elements of an offence must be established beyond a reasonable doubt before there can be a verdict of guilty. The offence of rape has three elements:
(1)The accused engaged in sexual intercourse with the complainant;
(2)the complainant did not consent; and
(3)the accused knew or was recklessly indifferent to the fact that…

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 JM

Details

AGLC: R v JM [2025] SADC 53
Case: [2025] SADC 53
Decision Date: 13 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v JM involves an appeal by the defendant against his conviction for the offence of rape. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The defendant was found guilty of raping a woman in her home, following a trial in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The legal issues that the High Court had to address were primarily concerned with the admissibility of evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction.

The court had to consider whether certain evidence, including text messages and prior inconsistent statements, was properly admitted and whether it was sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court examined the trial judge's direction to the jury regarding the consideration of this evidence and the overall assessment of its probative value against any prejudicial effect. The court also needed to determine whether the jury had been properly directed on the elements of the offence of rape and whether the verdict was supported by the evidence.

The High Court found that the trial judge had correctly admitted the evidence and that it was properly considered by the jury. The court held that the evidence, when viewed in its entirety, was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that the defendant was guilty of the offence of rape. The High Court rejected the defendant's appeal and upheld the conviction, finding no error in the trial judge's handling of the evidence or direction to the jury. The court emphasised the importance of a proper assessment of the probative value and prejudicial effect of evidence in sexual offence cases.

Orders