Legal Research
Cases
R v M, RJ

R v M, RJ

Case [2014] SADC 90 23 May 2014

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, RJ
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2014] SADC 90
Reasons for the Verdicts of His Honour Judge Slattery
23 May 2014
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - UNLAWFUL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE OR CARNAL KNOWLEDGE
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - INDECENT ASSAULT AND RELATED OFFENCES
Trial by Judge Alone.
Accused charged with the following counts in respect of three complainants: one count of unlawful sexual intercourse, four counts of indecent assault and one count of persistent sexual exploitation of a child.
Verdict: Guilty on all counts.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935 s5, s49(3), s50, s56, s69, s278; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s34CB, s34M, s34P; Juries Act 1927 s7(1) ; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s34CB , referred to.
De Jesus v R (1986) 61 ALJR 1; Hoch v R (1988) 165 CLR 292; R v M, BJ (2011) SASCFC 50, applied.
Pfennig v R (1995) 182 CLR 461; R v Gum [2007] SASC 311; Hoch v R (1998) 165 CLR 292; Martin v Osborne (1936) 55 CLR 367; Director of Public Prosecutions (UK) v Boardman [1975] AC 421 ; R v M, BJ [2011] SASCFC 50; R v Wallace [2008] SASC 47; R v N, SH [2010] SASCFC 74; R v Maiolo (no. 2) 117 SASR 1; R v A (2012) 113 SASR 146 ; R v S (2010) 109 SASR 46; R v El Rafai (2012) SASCFC 98 ; Shaw v The Queen (1952) 85 CLR 365 ; R v Soma (2003) 212 CLR 229 ; Sutton v R (1983-1984) 152 CLR 523, considered.

R v M, RJ
[2014] SADC 90
JUDGE SLATTERY
CRIMINAL

This is a trial by Judge alone.
The accused RJM is charged on Information dated 17 February 2014 with the following offences:-
INFORMATION
RJM is charged with the following offences:
First Count
Statement of Offence
Unlawful Sexual Intercourse. (Section 49(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
RJM between the 1^st day of January 1987 and the 31^st day of December 1989 at Brooklyn Park, had sexual intercourse with KRM, a person of or above the age of 12 years and under the age of 17 years, by inserting his finger into her vagina.
Second Count
Statement of Offence
Indecent Assault. (Section 56 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
RJM between the 1^st day of January 1987 and the 31^st day of December 1989 at Brooklyn Park, indecently assaulted KRM.
Third Count
Statement of Offence
Indecent Assault. (Ibid).
Particulars of Offence
RJM between the 1^st day of January 1987 and the 15^th day of March 1990 at Salisbury North, indecently assaulted KRM.
Fourth Count
Statement of Offence
Persistent Sexual Exploitation of a Child. (Section 50 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
RJM between…

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, RJ

Details

AGLC: R v M, RJ [2014] SADC 90
Case: [2014] SADC 90
Decision Date: 23 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v M, RJ, the respondents, M and RJ, were convicted of various sexual offences, including unlawful sexual intercourse and indecent assault. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The respondents appealed their convictions and sentences, raising several arguments, including the sufficiency of the evidence and the applicability of certain legal principles.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the prosecution had proven each element of the charges beyond reasonable doubt and whether the trial judge had correctly applied the law in relation to the offences of unlawful sexual intercourse and indecent assault. The respondents contended that the evidence was insufficient to establish their guilt, particularly regarding the element of consent in the unlawful sexual intercourse charge. They also argued that the trial judge had misapplied the law in relation to the indecent assault charge.

The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence to establish each element of the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the evidence of the victim was clear, consistent, and corroborated by other evidence. The court also found that the trial judge had correctly applied the law in relation to the offences. The court rejected the respondents' arguments and upheld the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial judge.

The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed and that the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial judge be upheld. The court did not alter the sentences imposed by the trial judge, finding that they were appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The court also ordered that the respondents pay costs of the appeal.

Orders