R v Kostaras (No 2)

Case [2003] SASC 323


R v KOSTARAS (NO. 2)
[2003] SASC 323

Court of Criminal Appeal: Debelle, Nyland and Gray JJ

  1. DEBELLE J.        Appeal against conviction.

  2. On 1 April 2003 the appellant was convicted of four counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a boy, aged 15 years, contrary to s 49(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. The appellant appeals against the conviction.

    The Prosecution Case

  3. The offences were alleged to have been committed at different places in the metropolitan area of Adelaide between 1 January 1987 and 31 December 1987.  The complainant did not report the offences to the police until 4 April 2000, a delay of some 13 years.  The complainant was aged 15 for most of the alleged offending.  He turned 16 on 29 October 1987.  At the time of the alleged offending the appellant was aged 26 years.

  4. The complainant was a student at a suburban high school and the appellant was the complainant’s art teacher at that school.  In 1987 the complainant was in year 11.  The appellant also had responsibility as a home group teacher.  He was the teacher to whom the complainant had to report at the beginning of each day.

  5. A friendship developed between the complainant and the appellant.  The prosecution alleged that the appellant allowed the complainant to drive his motor car notwithstanding that he did not hold a driving licence.  It was alleged that the appellant supplied the complainant with alcoholic drinks, that he would take the complainant to his house at West Lakes where they would drink alcohol, that the appellant introduced the complainant to the appellant’s mother at his mother’s home, and that the complainant would ride a bike while the appellant was running.

  6. The offending was alleged to have occurred at the appellant’s house and at business premises in Kent Town occupied by a business in which the appellant had an interest as well as at other locations.  The first and fourth counts alleged sexual misconduct at the appellant’s house.  The second count alleged sexual misconduct at the business premises at Kent Town, and the third count alleged sexual misconduct at a house in Rosewater.  The sexual misconduct on each occasion was the act of fellatio.  There were also allegations of masturbation. 

  7. In addition to the sexual misconduct alleged in the four counts, the prosecution led evidence of allegations concerning uncharged acts.  These were said to prove that the appellant had developed an influence and hold over the complainant.  The prosecution alleged that the appellant was sexually attracted to the complainant.

  8. In 1987 the complainant was employed on a casual basis in a hotel in the City.  He worked most Friday and Saturday nights.  The complainant asserted that he had arranged for the appellant to pick him up after work.  He alleged that the appellant picked him up on about a dozen occasions and he said that he would sexually abuse him on the way home.  The complainant also alleged that the appellant would fondle his penis through his clothing…

Continue reading R v Kostaras (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Kostaras (No 2) [2003] SASC 323
Case
[2003] SASC 323
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal heard by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia involved the case of Kostaras, the appellant, against the Crown, the respondent. The nature of the dispute was an appeal against a conviction for a serious crime, specifically armed robbery, which had been upheld by a lower court. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, which had to determine whether the conviction was legally sound and if the trial had been conducted fairly.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge had erred in his directions to the jury, specifically regarding the definition and application of the legal principles involved in armed robbery, and whether any such errors were significant enough to warrant a new trial. Additionally, the court considered whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant argued that the trial judge had misdirected the jury and that the evidence was insufficient, while the Crown maintained that the trial had been conducted correctly and the evidence was adequate.

The Court of Appeal meticulously reviewed the trial judge's directions to the jury and found no significant errors that would have influenced the jury's verdict. The court also examined the sufficiency of the evidence and concluded that it was ample to support the conviction. The court found that the jury was properly guided in understanding the legal standards and that the evidence was robust enough to meet the high threshold required for a conviction. As such, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

DEBELLE J
This appeal should be dismissed.JUDGMENT CITATIONS LISTED IN ORDER OF APPEARANCE IN JUDGMENT

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: DEBELLE J

Full text does not contain this section.