R v M, L

Case [2018] SADC 92 28 August 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v M, L
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2018] SADC 92
Reasons for the Verdict of His Honour Judge Tilmouth
28 August 2018
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - COMPLAINTS - ADMISSIBILITY OF DETAILS AND FACT OF COMPLAINT
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - INDECENT ASSAULT AND RELATED OFFENCES
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - UNLAWFUL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE OR CARNAL KNOWLEDGE
The accused is charged with three counts of indecent assault and three counts of unlawful sexual intercourse of a child, his eldest daughter, and one count of indecent assault of a child, his second daughter. Both gave evidence and other witnesses in the prosecution case essentially gave 'complaint' evidence, together with some evidence of uncharged acts. The accused gave evidence denying the charges and he called evidence from his father, his wife, his eldest son and a boarder in the family homes, which in a number of ways and to varying degrees, supported the accused's evidence:
Held: In light of the diametrically opposed cases and that the court is unable to reject the defence case as a reasonable possibility, it is not possible to determine where the truth lies and the accused is therefore entitled to acquittals on all counts.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 s 5, s 5AA(1)(e)(i), s 5AA(1)(g)(iii)(A), s 5AA(1)(e)(i), s 49(1), s 49(7), s 56, s 56(2), s 57(2), s 278(1), s 278(2a)(b); Criminal Procedure Act 1921 s 278; Evidence Act 1929 s 13(7), s 34CB(3), s 34M, s 34P(2), s 34P(3), s 34R(2); R v Maiolo (No 2) (2013) 117 SASR 1; Wu v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 99; Woolmington v The Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] AC 462; King v The Queen (2003) 215 CLR 150; R v Reeves (1992) 29 NSWLR 109; Pryor v The Queen (1969) 43 ALJR 388; R v WG (2010) 199 A Crim R 218; R v Pfitzner (1976) 15 SASR 171; R v Dossi (1918) 13 Cr App R 158; R v Frederick [2004] SASC 404; 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; R v Beserick (1993) 30 NSWLR 510; Tully v The Queen (2006) 230 CLR 234; HML v The Queen (2008) 235 CLR 334; R v Schlaefer (1984) 37 SASR 207; R v C, CA [2013] SASCFC 137; R v S, DD (2010) 109 SASR 46; R v Place (2015) 124 SASR 467; R v Moore (2017) 128 SASR 340; R v Finn (2014) 119 SASR 207; R v N, RC (2012) 112 SASR 399; Brown v The King (1913) 17 CLR 570; Robinson v The Queen (No 2) (1991) 180 CLR 531; R v Robinson…

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, L

Details

AGLC: R v M, L [2018] SADC 92
Case: [2018] SADC 92
Decision Date: 28 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendants were convicted of indecent assault and unlawful sexual intercourse or carnal knowledge. The appeal was against the conviction, and the matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The legal issues in the case involved the admissibility of evidence regarding the complainant's prior complaints and the complainant's state of mind. The defendants argued that the trial judge had erred in admitting certain evidence, which led to an unfair trial.

The court considered whether the evidence of the complainant's prior complaints and state of mind was relevant and admissible. The High Court held that the evidence was admissible as it was relevant to the complainant's credibility and state of mind at the time of the alleged offences. The court also noted that the trial judge had properly warned the jury about the potential dangers of considering such evidence. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.

In reaching this decision, the High Court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the jury receives all relevant evidence in a criminal trial. The court noted that the evidence in question was crucial in assessing the credibility of the complainant and the defendants' defence. The court also highlighted the need for trial judges to provide appropriate warnings to the jury regarding the potential dangers of considering certain evidence.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal and uphold the convictions of the defendants. The High Court did not grant leave to appeal to the Privy Council, and the convictions remained in place. The decision serves as an important reminder to trial judges of the need to carefully consider the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials, particularly when it comes to sensitive issues such as sexual offences.

Orders