R v MHH - [2025] SADC 47

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v MHH
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2025] SADC 47
Reasons for the Verdict of her Honour Judge Kudelka
5 May 2025
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - MAINTAINING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH CHILD AND PERSISTENT SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILD
The accused is charged with the offence of Sexual Abuse of a Child contrary to s 50(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935. At the time of the alleged offending he was in a de facto relationship with the complainant's mother. It is alleged he committed unlawful sexual acts with the complainant over a three month period in 2022 when the complainant was aged eight and nine years old.
Verdict: Guilty.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 50; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 13BA, s 29C s 34M, s 34P, s 34 R, referred to.
AWK v Tasmania [2004] TASCCA 5; BQ v The King [2024] HCA 29; R v Schulz (2016) SASR 476; R v Ahmadi, R v Hosseini, R v A,N, R v M,A (2018) 131 SASR 64; R v J, A (2009) 105 SASR 563; R v Szejnoga (1998) 199 LSJS 97, applied.

R v MHH
[2025] SADC 47
Criminal

The accused is charged with the offence of Sexual Abuse of a Child contrary to s 50(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935.
The particulars of the offence are that between the 31^st day of December 2021 and the 1^st day of April 2022, the accused maintained an unlawful sexual relationship with the complainant, a person under the age of 17, by engaging in two or more unlawful sexual acts with or towards her, namely touching her vagina on more than one occasion.
At the time of the alleged offending, the accused was in a relationship with the complainant’s mother. The accused and the complainant’s mother are the parents of the complainant’s younger brother.
The accused elected for trial by judge alone.
Elements of the offence of Sexual Abuse of a Child
An adult who maintains an unlawful sexual relationship with a child is guilty of an offence. The offence has four elements:
1.The accused knowingly maintained a relationship with the complainant in the relevant period.
2.The accused engaged in two or more unlawful sexual acts with the complainant in the course of the relationship.
3. The complainant was a child during the relationship.
4. The accused was an adult during the relationship.
The prosecution must prove each element of the offence to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. It is not sufficient for the prosecution to prove a suspicion of guilt, or that the accused is possibly or even probably guilty.
The first element was not in dispute. At the time of the offending, the accused was living with the complainant’s mother, the complainant and her two brothers in the same home at Edwardstown. The complainant called the accused ‘daddy’.[1] She…

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 MHH

Details

AGLC: R v MHH [2025] SADC 47
Case: [2025] SADC 47
Decision Date: 5 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v MHH came before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, MHH, was charged with two offences: maintaining a sexual relationship with a child and persistent sexual abuse of a child. The victim in this case was a child under the age of 16, and the relationship between the defendant and the victim spanned several years. The prosecution alleged that the defendant engaged in a series of sexual acts with the child, which amounted to both the specified offences under the relevant Victorian criminal legislation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had engaged in the alleged sexual activities with the child. The court was required to determine the credibility of the victim's testimony and the corroboration of other evidence, including medical reports and witness statements. Furthermore, the court had to consider the definitions and elements of the offences as outlined in the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) to ascertain whether they had been made out.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously examined the evidence presented. The judge found the victim's testimony to be credible and corroborated by other evidence, including medical findings that were consistent with the allegations. The court concluded that the defendant had indeed engaged in the activities that constituted the offences of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child and persistent sexual abuse of a child. The judge emphasised the gravity of the offences and the need to protect children from such abuse. Consequently, the court found the defendant guilty on both counts.

The defendant was sentenced to a period of imprisonment, the details of which were not specified in the judgment. The court also made an order that the defendant be subject to a sexual offences prevention order and be listed on the sex offender register. The orders reflect the seriousness of the crimes and the need for measures to prevent reoffending and to protect the community.

Orders