Legal Research
Cases
R v M, MD

R v M, MD

Case [2019] SADC 173 19 November 2019

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v M, MD
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2019] SADC 173
Reasons for the Verdicts of His Honour Judge Slattery
19 November 2019
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - TRIAL HAD BEFORE JUDGE WITHOUT JURY
By Information for arraignment on 5 August 2019, the accused was charged two counts of Maintaining an Unlawful Sexual Relationship with a Child and one count of Indecent Assault. The first complainant was the step-daughter of the accused. The second complainant was both the half-sister and step-daughter of the accused.
Held:
I find the accused guilty on counts 1 and 3.
I find the accused not guilty on count 2.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 s 50(1), s 56; Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016 s 38; Evidence Act s 34CB, s 34M, referred to.
R v M, DV [2019] SASCFC 59; R v Tran [2017] SASCFC 99; R v C, CA [2013] SASCFC 137; R v Dawson-Ryan (2009) 104 SASR 571; R v W, PK [2016] SASCFC 5, discussed.
R v Schultz [2010] SASCFC 47; R v Ahmadi; R v Hosseini; R v A, N; R v M, A (2018) 131 SASR 64; Douglass v The Queen [2012] HCA 34; (2012) 290 ALR 699; R v Keyte [2000] SASC 382; (2000) 78 SASR 68; R v Thompson [2018] SASCFC 104; DL v The Queen (2018) 92 ALJR 636; Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247; Beale v Government Insurance Office (NSW) (1997) 48 NSWLR 430; AK v Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 438; Reg. v. Hodge (1838) 2 Lewin 227; Plomp v. The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234; Gant v. The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 503; R v Sutton (1983) 32 SASR 553; R v Hamra [2016] SADC 4; PNJ v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) (2010) 27 VR 146; R v Bonython-Wright (2013) 117 SASR 410; R v Cassebohm (2011) 109 SASR 465; R v Maiolo (No 2) (2013) 117 SASR 1; R v R, PA [2019] SASCFC 19; R v N, RC (2012) 112 SASR 399, considered.

R v M, MD
[2019] SADC 173

The accused is charged on Information for arraignment on 5 August 2019 with the following offences:
First Count
Statement of Offence
Maintaining an Unlawful Sexual Relationship with a Child. (Section 50(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
MDM at Pinery, between the 1^st day of June 1990 and the 30^th day of November 1992, maintained an unlawful sexual relationship with KMA, a person under the age of 17 years, by engaging in two or more unlawful sexual acts with or towards KMA, namely:
(a) touching her on the vagina on more than one occasion; and
(b) penetrating her labia majora on more than one occasion.
This is a “prescribed offence” within the meaning and for the purposes…

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, MD

Details

AGLC: R v M, MD [2019] SADC 173
Case: [2019] SADC 173
Decision Date: 19 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The accused, M, MD, was brought before the County Court of Victoria to face charges of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child and indecent assault. The charges arose from allegations made by two complainants, both of whom had familial ties to the accused. The first complainant was the step-daughter of the accused, while the second complainant was both the half-sister and step-daughter of the accused. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria, with the trial conducted before a judge sitting alone without a jury.

The primary legal issues that the court was required to decide involved the credibility and reliability of the complainants' testimonies and whether the prosecution had established the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The defence argued that the testimonies were inconsistent and unreliable, and that there were significant doubts about the truthfulness of the complainants. The court also had to consider whether the relationship between the accused and the complainants influenced the testimonies provided.

The court found the testimonies of the complainants to be credible and reliable. The judge detailed that the complainants' accounts were consistent and corroborated by other evidence. The judge held that the prosecution had successfully proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasised the gravity of the offences and the impact on the complainants. The accused was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to appropriate terms of imprisonment.

Orders