R v PRM (No 2) - [2022] SADC 91

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v PRM (No 2)
[2022] SADC 91
Reasons for the Verdict of her Honour Judge Davison
12 August 2022
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - MAINTAINING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH CHILD AND PERSISTENT SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILD
The accused was charged with the offence of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with his 4-year-old granddaughter after she disclosed to her mother that he was licking her.
The child was not called to give evidence. Her statements including one recorded by her mother were admitted pursuant to s 34LA of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA). The recording included words and a demonstration of the accused's conduct.
A recording of the accused and the complainant made two days after the disclosure was admitted as an admission to the charged offending.
Charge of Maintaining an Unlawful Sexual Relationship with a Child proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Verdict: Guilty.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 5; 49(1); 50(1); Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) ss 13(1); 34D; 34LA; Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA) ss 131; 132, referred to.
R v PRM [2022] SADC 4; Barca v The Queen (1975) 133 CLR 82; R v Salahattin [1983] 1 VR 521; R v Alexander 2 VR 249; R v Corkin (No 2) (1988) 50 SASR 285; R v Randall (1991) 55 SASR 447, applied.

R v PRM (No 2)
[2022] SADC 91
Criminal
Introduction

The accused is the maternal grandfather of EMH, who was 4 years and 5 months old on 10 February 2020. At that time, she was living with her mother, TLH and father, MRH, in Mount Gambier.
TLH returned to work in 2016, shortly after the birth of EMH. Arrangements were put in place for childcare. Initially, the accused looked after EMH a number of days a week at his home and at the family home of EMH. On the remaining days, she attended childcare and was occasionally cared for by other grandparents.
From about October 2019 until the time of the alleged offending, the accused cared for EMH at her family home. EMH commenced kindy in early 2020, attending on Tuesday, Thursday, and every second Friday. The accused cared for her on Monday, Wednesday, alternative Fridays and some Saturdays. EMH called the accused ‘Pa’. They appeared to have a very close relationship.
At about 8:20 pm on Monday, 10 February 2020, EMH revealed to her mother that the accused was licking her. She demonstrated the action of him licking her and indicated where he licked her. This demonstration was captured on her mother’s mobile phone.
EMH subsequently repeated that demonstration to her father and gave further details as to the circumstances in which the acts occurred.
EMH was then put to bed. Her father challenged her allegation saying ‘…if I asked Pa, if this was true, will he say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and if you’re right I’ll give you…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v PRM (No 2) [2022] SADC 91
Case: [2022] SADC 91
Decision Date: 12 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v PRM (No 2), the defendant, PRM, stood accused of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child under 16 years of age and persistently engaging in sexual abuse of a child. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria, presided over by Judge Smith. The prosecution relied on the testimonies of the child and other witnesses, along with forensic evidence, to support the allegations against PRM. The defence argued that the child's testimony was unreliable and that the evidence was circumstantial at best.

The court was required to determine several key issues. First, whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that PRM maintained a sexual relationship with the child and engaged in persistent sexual abuse. Second, the court needed to consider the credibility of the child's testimony and how it should be weighed against other evidence. Third, the court had to assess the reliability of forensic evidence and how it correlated with the child's account of events.

After a thorough examination of the evidence, the court found that the prosecution had successfully established the charges against PRM. The judge determined that the child's testimony, while not perfect, was sufficiently corroborated by other evidence to satisfy the legal burden of proof. The court placed significant weight on the consistency of the child's account and the absence of any contradictory evidence from the defence. The forensic evidence, though limited, was deemed supportive of the child's narrative. Consequently, the judge found PRM guilty on both counts. PRM was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the gravity of the offences. The specific details of the sentence were not provided in the summary.

Orders