Legal Research
Cases
R v M, GA

R v M, GA

Case [2017] SADC 40 18 April 2017

Unlawful Sexual Intercourse or Carnal Knowledge

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v M, GA
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2017] SADC 40
Reasons for the Verdicts of His Honour Judge Tilmouth
18 April 2017
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - UNLAWFUL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE OR CARNAL KNOWLEDGE
Charges of unlawful sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 17, of assault and of supplying a controlled drug to a child, found not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Verdicts of not guilty entered accordingly.
Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) s 33F(a); Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 5, s 20(3), s 49(3), s 49(7); Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 13(7), s 25A, s 34M(4), s 34R(2), s 71A(4); Statutes Amendment Repeal (Simplify) Act 2017 (SA) s 53; R v Beserick (1993) 30 NSWLR 510; R v Nieterink (1999) 76 SASR 56; R v Vonarx [1999] 3 VR 618; R v Grech [1997] 2 VR 609; Roach v The Queen (2011) 242 CLR 610; Tully v The Queen (2006) 230 CLR 234; HML v The Queen (2008) 235 CLR 334; R v Schlaefer (1984) 37 SASR 207; Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462; R v Reeves (1992) 29 NSWLR 109; Pryor v The Queen (1969) 43 ALJR 388; King v The Queen (2003) 215 CLR 150; R v WG (2010) 199 A Crim R 218; Murphy v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 94; Azzopardi v The Queen (2001) 205 CLR 50; R v J, SM (2013) 117 SASR 535; R v Phillips [2015] SASCFC 67; R v Usher (2014) 119 SASR 22, referred to.
R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12, applied.

R v M, GA
[2017] SADC 40
Background

The accused is before the court charged with five offences of a sexual or related nature, to which he entered pleas of not guilty. He is 55 years of age and is a cousin of the complainant. The complainant was 15 years of age at relevant times and aged nearly seventeen when giving evidence.[1] Both lived in or about the town of Millicent in the South East. A valid election for trial by judge alone was made prior to the commencement of the trial.
[1] The participants in the trial are anonymised so as to protect the identity of the complainant from publication: s 71A(4) Evidence Act 1929 (SA).
The charges in brief
The allegations begin with a camping trip in April 2015, during which the accused performed fellatio for the first time on the complainant, who was heavily intoxicated at the time. This is the core allegation of the particularised offence of unlawful sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 17 years charged on count 1, contrary to s49(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (the CLCA). A couple of weeks later the accused is alleged to have given the complainant crystal methamphetamine…

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 M, GA

Details

AGLC: R v M, GA [2017] SADC 40
Case: [2017] SADC 40
Decision Date: 18 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v M, GA was heard in the District Court of New South Wales. The defendant, M, was charged with one count of unlawful sexual intercourse contrary to section 28(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The prosecution alleged that M engaged in sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old girl, who was below the age of consent. The case raised significant issues concerning the voluntariness and capacity of the complainant to consent to the sexual activity.

The court was required to determine whether the complainant had the capacity to consent to the sexual act, and whether the act was voluntary. The central issue was whether the 14-year-old girl, who was below the age of consent under the legislation, had genuinely and voluntarily consented to the sexual activity with M. The court examined the evidence of the complainant's state of mind and whether she had the capacity to understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of her actions.

The District Court found that the complainant did not have the capacity to consent to the sexual act due to her age and mental state. The court held that the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant was below the age of consent and lacked the capacity to genuinely consent to the sexual activity. The court emphasised the importance of protecting minors from sexual exploitation and abuse. Consequently, the defendant was found guilty of the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse. The court imposed a sentence, details of which are not provided in the text.

Orders