R v Mendis - [2024] NSWDC 420

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Mendis [2024] NSWDC 420
Hearing dates: 27 August 2024 – 9 September 2024
Date of orders: 13 September 2024
Decision date: 13 September 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:
Verdicts of not guilty

Catchwords:
Sexual offending; multiple child complainants; Judge alone trial; defence of automatism.

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
KRM v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 221
R v DB [2022] NSWCCA 87
R v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30; [1990] HCA 49
R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82
Velevski v The Queen (2002) 187 ALR 233; [2002] HCA 4

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Aaron Mendis (the Accused)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (the Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr D Carroll (the Accused)
Mr J Tunks (the Crown)
Solicitors:
Ms S TambyRajah (the Accused)
Ms L Vander Reest (the Crown)

File Number(s): 2021/00161244, 2021/00161263 & 2022/00070993
Publication restriction: Pursuant to s578A of the Crimes Act 1900 and s15A of the Children (Criminal Procedure) Act 1987 the names of the complainants or any matter which is likely to lead to the identification of the complainants, must not be published.

JUDGMENT

Introduction

Upon arraignment on 27 August 2024 the accused pleaded not guilty to the following 15 Counts on the Indictment:-

Between the 31^st day of December 2014 and the 12^th day of May 2015, at Castle Hill, in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with JR, the said JR being a person of the age of 14 years, in circumstances of aggravation, namely, JR was under the authority of Aaron Mendis.

Between the 31^st day of December 2014 and 12^th day of May 2015, in Castle Hill, in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with JR, the said JR being a person of the age of 14 years in circumstances of aggravation, to wit, JR was under the authority of Aaron Mendis.

Between the 31^st day December 2014 and the 12^th day of May 2015, at Castle Hill, in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with JR, the said JR being a person of the age of 14 years in circumstances of aggravation, namely, JR was under the authority of Aaron Mendis.

Between the 31^st day December 2014 and the 12^th day of May 2015, at Castle Hill, in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with JR, the said JR being a person of the age of 14 years in circumstances of aggravation, namely, JR was under the authority of Aaron Mendis.

Between the 31^st day December 2014 and the 12^th day of May 2015, at Castle Hill, in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with JR, the said JR being a person of or above the age of 14 years and under the age of 16 years, namely,…

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 Mendis

Details

AGLC: R v Mendis [2024] NSWDC 420
Case: [2024] NSWDC 420
Decision Date: 13 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Mendis, the defendant faced charges related to multiple instances of sexual offending against children. The trial was held before a judge alone in the County Court of Victoria. The defendant pleaded not guilty to the charges, asserting a defence of automatism, which contends that the defendant was not in control of their actions due to a medical condition or other external factors.

The court was required to determine whether the defendant was indeed acting involuntarily at the time of the alleged offences, and if so, whether this defence was applicable in the context of sexual offences against children. Additionally, the court had to consider the admissibility of evidence from multiple child complainants and the appropriate legal standards for evaluating such evidence.

The court found that the defence of automatism was not applicable in this case, as the evidence did not support the claim that the defendant was not in control of their actions. The court also found that the evidence from the multiple child complainants was reliable and consistent, leading to the conclusion that the defendant was guilty of the sexual offences. However, the court determined that the trial should have been conducted with a jury, as the charges were serious and involved multiple child victims. As a result, the verdicts were quashed and the matter was ordered to be retried before a jury.

The court ordered that the case be retried before a jury, with the defendant remaining on bail pending the retrial. The court also noted that the defendant would be entitled to legal representation during the retrial.

Orders

Orders of the court

Verdicts of not guilty

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Mendis [2024] NSWDC 420
Hearing dates:	27 August 2024 – 9 September 2024
Date of orders:	13 September 2024
Decision date:	13 September 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	Verdicts of not guilty
Catchwords:	Sexual offending; multiple child complainants; Judge alone trial; defence of automatism.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	KRM v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 221 R v DB [2022] NSWCCA 87 R v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30; [1990] HCA 49 R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82 Velevski v The Queen (2002) 187 ALR 233; [2002] HCA 4
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Aaron Mendis (the Accused) Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (the Crown)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr D Carroll (the Accused) Mr J Tunks (the Crown) Solicitors: Ms S TambyRajah (the Accused) Ms L Vander Reest (the Crown)
File Number(s):	2021/00161244, 2021/00161263 & 2022/00070993
Publication restriction:	Pursuant to s578A of the Crimes Act 1900 and s15A of the Children (Criminal Procedure) Act 1987 the names of the complainants or any matter which is likely to lead to the identification of the complainants, must not be published.