R v LLOYD - [2023] SADC 2

District Court of South Australia
(Criminal)
R v LLOYD
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2023] SADC 2
Reasons for the Verdicts of his Honour Judge Cuthbertson
19 January 2023
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - INDECENT ASSAULT AND RELATED OFFENCES
The defendant is charged on the Information for arraignment on 8 July 2022 with two counts of Aggravated Indecent Assault against the victim.
It is alleged the defendant indecently assaulted the victim on two separate occasions whilst they were playing an electronic game at Marion Shopping Centre.
Held: The verdicts of the court, for the published reasons are as follows:
Count 1 - Not Guilty
Count 2 - Guilty
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 56; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) ss 13BA, 34M, 74EB; Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) s 74EA, referred to.

R v LLOYD
[2023] SADC 2
R V LLOYD

The defendant is charged with two counts of Aggravated Indecent Assault.
First Count
Statement of Offence
Aggravated Indecent Assault. (Section 56 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
On the 28^th August 2021 at Oaklands Park, the accused indecently assaulted SGK by touching her groin.
It is further alleged that SGK was under the age of 14 years at the time of the offence.
Second Count
Statement of Offence
Aggravated Indecent Assault (Ibid).
Particulars of Offence
On the 28^th of August 2021 at Oaklands Park, the accused indecently assaulted SGK by causing her to touch his penis.
It is further alleged that SGK was under the age of 14 years at the time of the offence.
Summary of Offences
The offences relate to the one occasion. The defendant and the complainant did not know each other before the occasion when they met at Intensity Games in Marion Shopping Centre where both offences are alleged to have occurred.
The defendant is aged 21 years.
The defendant is charged with Aggravated Indecent Assault on the complainant by touching her near her vagina outside of her clothes (Count 1) and a further count of putting the complainant’s hand on his penis (Count 2).
The defendant unfortunately suffers from Autism Spectrum Disorder.[1] He was at the Marion Shopping Centre on 28 August 2021 attending the Intensity Games with a group of 10 young people similarly suffering from Autism Spectrum Disorder.[2]
[1] Ex D6 P15.4.
[2] T 19 L 7-9.
It was an outing organised so that these people could learn to socialise with each other and with the general public as therapy for their condition.
The father of the complainant and another adult were present as supervisors to assist the young people in their socialisation. The father took the complainant, aged about 10 years, and her younger sister along for the outing.
Admission of Audio-Visual Record of the Complainant’s Interview
An application was made for admission of an Audio-Visual Record of the complainant’s interview as evidence pursuant to s 13BA of the Evidence Act 1929.
As I…

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 LLOYD

Details

AGLC: R v LLOYD [2023] SADC 2
Case: [2023] SADC 2
Decision Date: 19 January 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lloyd was before the Court of Appeal. The appellant had been convicted of indecent assault and related offences. The facts of the case involved an assault against a woman by the appellant. The victim reported the incident to the police, leading to the appellant's arrest and subsequent trial. The Court of Appeal was asked to consider the validity of the conviction and any errors that may have occurred during the trial that could have impacted the outcome.

The primary legal issues addressed by the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge had erred in his directions to the jury and whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The appellant argued that the trial judge's directions to the jury were inadequate and may have led to a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the appellant contended that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had not erred in his directions to the jury and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The Court held that the trial judge had provided appropriate directions and that the jury had been properly informed of the elements of the offence. Furthermore, the Court found that the evidence, when considered as a whole, was sufficient to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal. The appellant's conviction for indecent assault and related offences was therefore confirmed.

Orders