Legal Research
Cases
R v Rajakaruna

R v Rajakaruna

Case [2004] VSCA 114 23 June 2004

Admission of Evidence

Jury Directions

Unanimity of Verdict

Sufficiency of Evidence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 111 of 2002

THE QUEEN
	v.
SANJEEWA GAYAN RAJAKARUNA

---

JUDGES:	CHERNOV and EAMES, JJ.A. and SMITH, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	3 February 2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 June 2004
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSCA 114	1^st Revision – 29 June 2004

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Admission of “similar fact” evidence – Test of admissibility – Applicant charged with sexual offences against four street prostitutes over a one month period – Offences of rape as to two complainants and offences of procuring (or attempting to procure) sexual penetration by fraudulent means, as to two other complainants – Crimes Act 1958 (Vic.), ss.38(1), 57(2), 321M, 398A.

CRIMINAL LAW – Directions of trial judge as to use of “similar fact” evidence.

CRIMINAL LAW – Direction as to unanimous verdict – Whether direction obligatory – Effect of s.46 Juries Act 2000.

CRIMINAL LAW – Whether verdict on fraudulent procurement offences unsafe or unsatisfactory or not supported by evidence.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr T. Gyorffy	Ms K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr O.P. Holdenson, Q.C.	Anthony Isaacs

CHERNOV, J.A.:

I have had the benefit of reading the draft reasons for judgment of Eames, J.A., with whom Smith, A.J.A. essentially agrees. As will become apparent, I have reached different conclusions from those of the other members of the Court in respect of grounds 9 and 10, and grounds 1(b), 10 and 12, of the applicant’s application for leave to appeal against conviction. In the circumstances, it is sufficient if I state only briefly the reasons for my conclusions. The relevant facts and circumstances are dealt with comprehensively by Eames, J.A., so that I shall only set out such of them as I consider necessary to give context to my analysis of the issues. I shall adopt the same initials in respect of each complainant as are used by Eames, J.A.

The applicant, Sanjeewa Gayan Rajakaruna, was convicted on 16 April 2002 by a jury, after a trial in the County Court at Melbourne, of four counts of rape, two counts of assault, one count of procuring sexual penetration by fraudulent means and one count of attempting to procure sexual penetration by fraudulent means, in respect of four complainants who were then prostitutes. The offences occurred between 27 September and 31 October 2000, when the applicant was aged 22 years. On 3 May 2002 the applicant, who had no prior convictions, was sentenced in respect of these offences to a total effective sentence of nine years and six months’ imprisonment. He was ordered to serve seven years’ imprisonment before being eligible for parole. He now seeks leave to appeal against conviction and sentence on a number of grounds, to which I shall refer later.

The applicant’s offending conduct in respect of the four complainants had a number of common features, which are fully identified and described in the reasons of Eames, J.A. For present purposes, it…

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 Rajakaruna

Details

AGLC: R v Rajakaruna [2004] VSCA 114
Case: [2004] VSCA 114
Decision Date: 23 June 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rajakaruna involved a defendant charged with multiple sexual offences against four street prostitutes over a one-month period. The defendant was charged with two counts of rape and two counts of procuring, or attempting to procure, sexual penetration by fraudulent means. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The case hinged on the admissibility of “similar fact” evidence and the trial judge's directions to the jury, specifically in relation to the requirement for a unanimous verdict and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge properly exercised their discretion in admitting “similar fact” evidence under section 38(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic.). Additionally, the court had to consider whether the trial judge’s directions to the jury regarding the requirement for a unanimous verdict were obligatory and in line with section 46 of the Juries Act 2000. The court also assessed whether the jury's verdict on the fraudulent procurement offences was unsafe or unsatisfactory and whether it was supported by the evidence.

The court held that the trial judge did not err in admitting the “similar fact” evidence as it was relevant to proving the defendant's intent and knowledge in relation to the offences. The court found that the trial judge’s directions to the jury concerning the requirement for a unanimous verdict were not obligatory, as section 46 of the Juries Act 2000 did not mandate such a direction. Furthermore, the court concluded that the jury's verdict on the fraudulent procurement offences was safe, satisfactory, and adequately supported by the evidence presented.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal against conviction and sentence. The defendant's appeal was rejected on the basis that the trial judge's exercise of discretion in admitting “similar fact” evidence was proper, the direction to the jury was not obligatory, and the jury's verdict on the fraudulent procurement offences was secure and supported by the evidence.

Orders