R v Prasad - [2009] SASC 131

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v PRASAD
[2009] SASC 131
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Justice Vanstone, The Honourable Justice Anderson and The Honourable Justice White)
21 May 2009
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - COMPLAINTS - ADMISSIBILITY OF DETAILS AND FACT OF COMPLAINT
Appeal against conviction - appellant convicted by jury of choking with intent to commit an offence and rape - complainant gave evidence of an act of violence towards her by appellant - last recollection before losing consciousness was seeing three caucasian men walking towards her - evidence of out of court statement that she had been raped by three men - complaint as to the directions trial judge gave jury about use of this evidence - complaint that trial judge's directions did not draw jury's attention to fact that it may have been the three men who caused complainant's injuries.
Held: Evidence of out of court statement not evidence of recent complaint and therefore no such direction required - statements made by complainant not testimonial - no error in judge's direction identified - appeal dismissed.

CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - EVIDENTIARY MATTERS RELATING TO WITNESSES AND ACCUSED PERSONS - IMPEACHMENT OF CREDIT AND ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE AS TO CREDIT - EVIDENCE IN CONTRADICTION
At trial appellant gave evidence which in one particular was inconsistent with version of events put to complainant in cross-examination - in closing address prosecution drew jury's attention to inconsistency and suggested accused had changed his position - appellant argues trial judge erred in failing to direct jury that there may have been other explanations for appellant's change in position.
Held: No unfairness to appellant had occurred - appellant had opportunity to explain inconsistency - trial judge's diretion focused jury's attention on evidence presented - permission to appeal refused.
Bedi v R (1993) 61 SASR 269; MJW v The Queen (2005) 80 ALJR 329, discussed.
R v Manunta (1990) 54 SASR 17, considered.

R v PRASAD
[2009] SASC 131
Court of Criminal Appeal: Vanstone, Anderson and White JJ

VANSTONE J: After a trial in the District Court before judge and jury, the appellant was convicted for choking with intent to commit an offence and rape. He was acquitted of a third charge of threatening life. He appeals against those convictions. Permission to appeal has been granted in respect of two grounds. The appellant renews his application for permission to appeal in respect of two further grounds. All grounds complain of error or inadequacy in the directions of the learned trial judge to the jury in the course of his summing up.
Background
The prosecution case was that the complainant had gone with her girlfriend and partner, D, to an hotel in Hackham where she met the appellant. The complainant and the appellant had danced and kissed. They had both been drinking liquor.
The appellant offered to take her into the city in his vehicle. At a car park near Christie’s Beach the…

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 Prasad

Details

AGLC: R v Prasad [2009] SASC 131
Case: [2009] SASC 131
Decision Date: 21 May 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in the case of R v Prasad was convicted by a jury of choking with intent to commit an offence and rape. The complainant provided evidence of an act of violence by the appellant, recalling seeing three Caucasian men approaching her before losing consciousness. There was evidence of an out-of-court statement by the complainant alleging that she had been raped by three men. The appellant challenged the admissibility of this evidence, arguing that the trial judge's directions to the jury did not sufficiently address the possibility that it was the three men, not the appellant, who caused the complainant's injuries.

The court considered whether the out-of-court statement constituted a recent complaint, which would require specific jury directions. It was determined that the statement was not a recent complaint, as it did not relate to the events in question but rather to an alleged past incident. Consequently, the court found no error in the trial judge's directions. Additionally, the appellant argued that the trial judge failed to direct the jury to consider other possible explanations for an inconsistency between his trial testimony and the version of events presented during cross-examination of the complainant. The court found that the trial judge's direction was sufficient and that the appellant had an opportunity to explain the inconsistency.

The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that no error in the trial judge's directions was identified, and the evidence was properly admitted and considered. The court concluded that the appellant had not been unfairly prejudiced and that the trial judge's directions were adequate. The permission to appeal was refused on the specified grounds. The orders proposed by Vanstone J were agreed upon, and the reasons provided were concurred with by the other judges.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

ANDERSON J (dissent)

I would refuse leave on this ground.Conclusion For the reasons given I would refuse permission to appeal on grounds 2 and 4 and I would dismiss the appeal. I agree that the appeal should be dismissed and that permission to appeal should be refused on grounds 2 and 4. I agree with the reasons of Vanstone J. WHITE J: I agree with the orders proposed by Vanstone J and with her reasons.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by:

Full text does not contain this section.