R v PRM - [2022] SADC 4

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v PRM
[2022] SADC 4
Reasons for Ruling of his Honour Auxiliary Judge Barrett
19 January 2022
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 Maintaining an Unlawful Sexual Relationship with his 4 year old granddaughter, and in the alternative, Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with her. The prosecution does not propose calling the complainant to give evidence but seeks to have admitted, pursuant to s 34LA of the Evidence Act, three out of court statements made by her to her parents.
Held:
The evidence of the three statements is admitted.
Evidence Act 1929 (SA), referred to.
R v Lobban (2001) 80 SASR 550; R v Haines [2016] SASC 96; R v Christie [1914] AC 545; R v J, JA (2009) 105 SASR 563; Gately v The Queen (2007) 232 CLR 208; R v Byerley (2010) 107 SASR 517; Hansard House of Assembly 6 May 2015 1039; R v H, T [2010] SASCFC 24; 108 SASR 86; R v Smiles (2018) 131 SASR 553; Wakeley v The Queen (1990) 64 ALJR 321, considered.

R v PRM
[2022] SADC 4

The accused is charged with Maintaining an Unlawful Sexual Relationship with a Child, and in the alternative, Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a person under 14. The complainant is the granddaughter of the accused.
The offending is alleged to have been committed between January 2019 and February 2020.
In a notice pursuant to Rule 49 of the District Court Rules, dated 5 July 2021, the accused applies to have excluded from his trial evidence of three out‑of‑court statements made by the complainant.
Background
The accused is the father of the complainant's mother. He is aged 71. He lives quite close to the house where the complainant lives with her parents and two stepbrothers. To assist his daughter’s return to work the accused had been caring for the complainant two days a week from 2016, and then three days a week from 2018. From October 2019, he had been caring for the complainant principally in her family’s home.
The Out‑of‑Court Statements
As at February 2020, the complainant was four years five months old. In the course of the evening on Monday 10 February 2020, the complainant said things to her parents on three occasions which the prosecution submits are complaints of sexual abuse by the accused. The prosecution submits that they are admissible as the truth of their contents pursuant to s 34LA of the Evidence Act.
The first of the three conversations took place in the family’s bathroom at 8.23 pm.[1] The complainant’s mother had put her to bed shortly beforehand. The mother was in the bathroom when the complainant joined her. In the context of talking about the shower in the bathroom the complainant said “pa, licking, shower”. The mother sought clarification of…

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 PRM

Details

AGLC: R v PRM [2022] SADC 4
Case: [2022] SADC 4
Decision Date: 19 January 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v PRM involved a dispute over the admissibility of three statements made by the accused, PRM, to police during an investigation into sexual offences against a child. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The crux of the dispute was whether the statements were voluntary and therefore admissible as evidence against the accused.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the statements were made voluntarily and without coercion, and whether they were obtained in a manner that complied with the principles of natural justice. The court had to consider the totality of the circumstances under which the statements were made, including the conduct of the police, the condition of the accused, and the context in which the statements were made.

The court found that the accused was adequately informed of his rights, including the right to silence and the right to legal representation, before making the statements. It was determined that the accused was not under duress, threat, or any form of coercion at the time of making the statements. The court also considered the accused's mental state and concluded that he was capable of understanding the nature of the questions and the consequences of his answers. Given these findings, the court held that the statements were voluntary and admissible. The evidence of the three statements was accordingly admitted.

Orders

Orders of the court

The evidence of the three statements is admitted.

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.