R v Mann

The case of *R v Mann* concerned an appeal by the Crown against a decision of a District Court judge in South Australia. The appeal arose from charges brought against the respondent, Mann, for offences relating to the sexual abuse of a child, specifically maintaining a sexual relationship with a child and persistent sexual abuse of a child. The appeal was brought by way of a case stated, raising questions of law for determination by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the District Court judge had erred in law by directing the jury to acquote the respondent on certain charges. This direction was based on the judge's interpretation of the evidence presented, particularly concerning the age of the complainant and the respondent's knowledge or belief about that age. The appeal therefore required the court to consider the elements of the offences charged and the evidentiary threshold required for a jury to find guilt.

The Full Court, comprising Kourakis CJ, Kelly and Peek JJ, analysed the relevant provisions of the *Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935* (SA) pertaining to sexual offences against children. The court considered the statutory definitions of "child" and the mental elements required for the offences, including the concept of "recklessness" as to the age of the complainant. The court ultimately found that the judge had erred in law by directing an acquittal, concluding that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to consider the charges. The court reasoned that the judge had impermissibly usurped the role of the jury by making findings of fact that were within the jury's province.

The Full Court allowed the Crown's appeal, quashed the acquittal on the relevant counts, and remitted the matter to the District Court for a retrial on those charges.