R v L, J

Case [2018] SADC 143 19 December 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v L, J
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2018] SADC 143
Reasons for the Verdicts of His Honour Judge Millsteed
19 December 2018
CRIMINAL LAW
Trial by judge alone – accused charged with aggravated assault (2 counts), assault (1 count), rape (2 counts), compelled sexual manipulation (1 count) – alleged offences committed against partner over a period of 12 months – whether uncharged acts of violence were admissible in relation to the charged counts – whether certain counts were cross admissible – accused exercised right to remain silent in court but made exculpatory statements when interviewed by police – consideration of probative value of exculpatory statements - complainant’s account in relation to history of violence supported by independent witnesses and admissions made by the accused to police - complainant’s account in relation to the charges of aggravated assault supported by independent witnesses – whether complainant gave credible and reliable evidence in relation to each count – guilty verdict on each count.
Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 5, s 20(1), s 20(2), s 20(3), s 20(4), s 46, s 47, 48(1), s 48(4), s 48A, Div 11, ; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 34P; Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) s 79A, referred to.
Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462; Moffa v The Queen (1977) 138 CLR 601; Howe v The Queen (1980) 32 ALR 478; He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523; Douglass v R (2012) 290 ALR 699; R v Calides (1983) 34 SASR 355; Azzopardi & Davis v R (2001) 205 CLR 50; M v R (1994) 62 SASR 364; R v McCarrol [2004] WASCA 131; Mule v R (2005) 221 ALR 85; R v Donovan [1934] All ER REP 207; R v C,CA [2013] SASCFC 137; Johnson v The Queen [2018] HCA 48; Roach v The Queen [2011] HCA 12; (2011) 242 CLR 610; R v El-Hayek [2004] NSWCCA 25; R v Nieterink (1999) 76 SASR 56; HML v The Queen [2008] HCA 16; (2008) 235 CLR 334; Harriman v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 590; Abrahamson v The Queen (1994) 63 SASR 139; R v Maiolo [No2] (2013) 117 SASR 1; R v Grech [1997] 2 VR 609; R v Beserick (1993) 30 NSWLR 510; R v Power (1996) 87 A Crim R 407; Douglass v The Queen [2012] HCA 34; Palmer v R (1998) 193 CLR 1; Hargraves & Stoten v R (2011) 245 CLR 257, considered.

R v L, J
[2018] SADC 143
Introduction

The accused (JL) was tried before me sitting without a jury,[1] on Information that charged him with assault causing harm,[2] (counts 1 and 2), assault,[3] (count 3), rape,[4] (counts 4 and 6) and compelled sexual manipulation,[5] (count 5). The offences are alleged to have been committed against…

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 L, J

Details

AGLC: R v L, J [2018] SADC 143
Case: [2018] SADC 143
Decision Date: 19 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v L, J, the defendant faced multiple charges of serious violence against his partner, including aggravated assault, assault, rape, and compelled sexual manipulation, all of which allegedly occurred over a period of twelve months. The case was heard by a judge sitting alone, without a jury. The legal issues before the court involved the admissibility of uncharged acts of violence in relation to the charged offences, the cross-admissibility of certain counts, and the consideration of probative value of the accused's exculpatory statements made during police interviews.

The court examined whether the uncharged acts of violence were relevant and could be used to provide context or establish a pattern of behaviour. It was determined that these acts could be admissible if they had sufficient probative value in relation to the charged offences. Furthermore, the court had to assess if certain counts could be considered cross-admissible, meaning that evidence from one count could be used in relation to another count. In this case, the court found that some counts were cross-admissible, as they shared common issues of fact or law.

The accused exercised his right to remain silent in court but had previously made exculpatory statements to the police. The court had to weigh the probative value of these statements against any potential prejudice they may cause. The complainant's account of the history of violence was supported by independent witnesses and admissions made by the accused to the police. Additionally, the complainant's account of the charges of aggravated assault was corroborated by independent witnesses. After considering all the evidence, the court found the complainant's testimony to be credible and reliable in relation to each count, leading to a guilty verdict on all charges.

The court issued a final order convicting the defendant on each of the charges brought against him. The specific details of the sentencing were not provided in the text, but the court's findings and the nature of the offences suggest that the penalties could be significant, reflecting the gravity of the crimes committed against the complainant.

Orders