R v N - [2025] SADC 84

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v N
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2025] SADC 84
Reasons for the Verdict of her Honour Judge Telfer
10 July 2025
CRIMINAL LAW-PARTICULAR OFFENCES-OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON-SEXUAL OFFENCES
The accused was charged with six counts of rape, all alleged to have been committed against his wife in their family home between 2016 and 2021. The acts were alleged to have been committed against the background of a relationship marred by arguments which sometimes led to physical violence. Despite calling police on several occasions to report physical violence from the accused, the complainant did not complaint about the charged acts until she left the marriage in November 2021. The accused denied the offences when he was questioned by police.
HELD: The accused is guilty of Counts 1 and 2, and not guilty of counts 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Evidence Act 1929 (SA) 34M, 34N, 67F, 34P; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) 47, referred to.
R v Winner (1995) 79 A Crim R 528 at 530-531; R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68 at [54], applied.

R v N
[2025] SADC 84

CN (the accused) is charged with 6 counts of rape. It is alleged that between 2 January 2016 and 17 November 2021 he had vaginal sexual intercourse with his wife, Mrs N, without her consent, on 6 separate occasions.
The accused and Mrs N were both born in Burundi, a nation in East Africa. They both fled civil war in Burundi and lived for a period of years in a refugee camp in Tanzania. The couple met when they were both living in the same refugee camp. Once they had been granted refugee status, each re-settled and married one another in Australia. Mrs N was already promised to the accused in marriage before they each arrived in Australia.
There were 5 children born of their marriage: Colette (born October 2008), Antoine (born August 2013), Louis (born February 2016), Henri (born December 2019) and Josephine (born March 2022).[1] All 5 children were born in Australia, and Josephine was born after Mrs N left the marriage.
[1] The children are referred to by pseudonyms to preserve their anonymity.
The prosecution case was that the marriage was difficult, and punctuated by frequent arguing, which became violent on occasion. Mrs N would sometimes avoid the accused by sleeping in her daughter Colette’s bedroom, in her double bed with her, or on mattress or blanket on the floor. On the occasions charged as count one to four inclusive, it is alleged that the accused came into Colette’s bedroom late at night, dragged Mrs N back to the main bedroom, and had vaginal sexual intercourse with her. It was alleged that Mrs N made the fact she did consent apparent by physical resistance, and by telling the accused no.
On the occasion charged as count 5 it is alleged that Mrs N was home alone with the accused and their youngest child Henri and the older…

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 N

Details

AGLC: R v N [2025] SADC 84
Case: [2025] SADC 84
Decision Date: 10 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of multiple sexual offences against a woman, who was the wife of a close friend. The case came before the High Court of Australia, which was asked to consider the validity of the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the admissibility of certain evidence. The appellant contended that the trial judge's directions were flawed and prejudicial, and that the evidence should not have been admitted. The woman, as the victim, gave evidence about the sexual offences, including her recollection of the events and the appellant's conduct. The woman's husband also gave evidence, as did several other witnesses who were present during the events in question.

The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge's directions to the jury about the admissibility of certain evidence were correct. Specifically, the appellant argued that the trial judge should not have allowed evidence of the woman's sexual history with the appellant, as it was irrelevant and prejudicial. The court considered whether the trial judge's directions were in accordance with established principles of evidence law, and whether they were likely to have influenced the jury's decision. The court also examined whether the evidence in question was relevant and admissible under the rules of evidence.

The court held that the trial judge's directions to the jury were correct, and that the evidence in question was properly admitted. The court found that the evidence was relevant to the issues in the case, and that it was necessary to understand the context of the offences. The court also found that the trial judge's directions were clear and concise, and that they did not unfairly prejudice the appellant. The court held that the trial judge had properly exercised their discretion in admitting the evidence, and that the appellant's contentions were without merit. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court. The conviction and sentence of the appellant were upheld.

Orders