R v MLG - [2025] SADC 39

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v MLG
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2025] SADC 39
Reasons for the Verdict of her Honour Judge Sutcliffe
15 April 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 one count of sexual abuse of a child relating to his stepdaughter, KH, between 1 April 2019 and 2 July 2023. The issue in dispute relates to the reliability and credibility of the evidence of KH, particularly as to whether her account of the alleged unlawful sexual acts was implausible, whether her memory was accurate, and whether her account of the alleged unlawful sexual acts was reliable.
Held: KH’s evidence was compelling, logical, and plausible. KH’s evidence that the accused inserted his penis into her vagina, caused her to perform fellatio on him, and ejaculated on her body, each of those acts occurring on more than one occasion, was credible and reliable. The accused maintained a relationship with KH between 1 April 2019 and 2 July 2023 and engaged in two or more unlawful sexual acts with or towards KH in that period.
Verdict: guilty.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 50(1); Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) Part 17; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) ss 13C and 34M(4)(a), referred to.
R v Corrigan (1989) 74 SASR 454; Morton (A Pseudonym) v The King [2025] SASCA 29; Weragoda v The Queen [2021] SASCA 123, considered.

R v MLG
[2025] SADC 39
Introduction

The accused is charged with one count of sexual abuse of a child contrary to s 50(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act1935 (SA) (the Act). The offence is alleged to have occurred between 1 April 2019 and 2 July 2023 against the accused’s stepdaughter when she was aged between seven and eleven.
The prosecution case is that the accused the accused engaged in two or more unlawful sexual acts with or towards KH,[1] namely by causing her to perform fellatio on him on more than one occasion, that he digitally penetrated KH’s vagina on one occasion, that he engaged in penile-vaginal sexual intercourse with KH on more than one occasion and ejaculated on her body on more than one occasion.
[1] These reasons refer to the complainant and her brother using the initial representing their preferred surname, which differs from the surname they both used at the time of the police investigation and is different from the complainant’s surname that appears on the Information.
There is no dispute that the accused maintained a relationship with KH during the particularised period or that the alleged conduct, if two or more of the particularised unlawful sexual acts are proven, establishes the elements of the charge.
The prosecution relies on KH’s evidence comprising four prescribed interviews made pursuant to Part 17, Division 3 of the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) conducted by police on 10 July 2023,…

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 MLG

Details

AGLC: R v MLG [2025] SADC 39
Case: [2025] SADC 39
Decision Date: 15 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v MLG involved the defendant, MLG, who was charged with maintaining a sexual relationship with a child and persistent sexual abuse of a child. The dispute arose from allegations of MLG engaging in sexual acts with a child under the age of 16. The matter was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issues the court needed to decide were whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that MLG was in a sexual relationship with the child and that he had engaged in persistent sexual abuse.

In addressing these issues, the court examined the evidence presented, including witness testimonies, medical reports, and any relevant documentation. The court paid particular attention to the credibility and reliability of the child's testimony, considering factors such as the child's age, demeanour, and consistency of the account. The court also considered the corroborative evidence and the legal principles surrounding the definitions and elements of the charged offences. Ultimately, the court found that the prosecution had successfully established the necessary elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the evidence demonstrated a clear and sustained pattern of sexual abuse by MLG against the child.

As a result of the findings, the court convicted MLG on both counts of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child and persistent sexual abuse of a child. The final orders included a sentence to be determined in a subsequent hearing, pending a pre-sentence report. The court's decision was based on a thorough examination of the evidence and a rigorous application of the relevant legal standards.

Orders