Legal Research
Cases
R v Rajakaruna (No 2)

R v Rajakaruna (No 2)

Link copied

Case Copied 18 December 2006 54 min read

Contents

On this page

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 197 of 2005

THE QUEEN
	v.
SANJEEWA GAYAN RAJAKARUNA (NO. 2)

---

JUDGES:	CALLAWAY and REDLICH, JJ.A. and SMITH, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	30 October 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	18 December 2006
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSCA 277

---

Criminal law – Common assault and rape – Two complainants – Crown case only partly circumstantial – Whether need to give directions on inferential reasoning – Rule in Browne v. Dunn – Questions not asked in cross-examination – Judge withdrawing issue from jury – Similar fact evidence – Innocent infection – Directions to be given – Appeal allowed - New trial directed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mrs C.M. Quin	Ms A. Cannon, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr P.G. Priest, Q.C. with Mr T. Kassimatis	Galbally & O’Bryan

CALLAWAY, J.A.:

I agree with the other members of the Court that ground 1B, as argued, must be upheld and that a new trial should be directed. I shall explain briefly why I am of that opinion, but there are some other issues to deal with first.

A direction on the nature of inferences, comparing them with speculation, is relevant in most criminal trials and should ordinarily be given. The same is not true of a direction that, if there is a reasonable explanation of the facts consistent with innocence, the jury are bound to find the accused not guilty. The latter direction is required only in a case that is largely circumstantial. In other cases a clear direction on the burden and standard of proof is usually sufficient.

As Redlich, J.A. explains, where the Crown relies on similar fact evidence and probability reasoning but there is a possibility of innocent infection, the judge must direct the jury that they cannot reason from the improbability of coincidence unless they are first satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there was no innocent infection.[1] That is a rule that will have to be borne in mind at the new trial. I need not decide whether innocent infection was sufficiently raised at the trial that we are considering for it to have been incumbent upon his Honour to give the direction to which I have just referred.
[1]R. v. Best [1998] 4 V.R. 621 at 611 and 616 point 4.

If there is a gap in the account of events given by prosecution witnesses, it is legitimate for defence counsel to point to that gap in his or her address to the jury as part of an argument that the Crown has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Defence counsel is entitled to point to an arguable lacuna and contend that it amounts to a deficiency in proof.[2] It is then a matter for the jury whether they accept counsel’s argument. In many cases the argument will be rejected, particularly where a pertinent question could have been asked of a witness and was not. The judge may

comment adversely…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Rajakaruna (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] VSCA 277
Decision Date: 18 December 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Rajakaruna (No 2), the respondent, Rajakaruna, was charged with two counts of sexual assault. The complainants, two women, alleged that the respondent had sexually assaulted them during separate incidents. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with considering the sufficiency of the evidence, the admissibility of similar fact evidence, and the trial judge's directions to the jury. The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge should have directed the jury on inferential reasoning, the admissibility of similar fact evidence, and whether the judge should have withdrawn a particular issue from the jury's consideration.

The High Court held that the trial judge should have directed the jury on inferential reasoning as the Crown's case was partly circumstantial. The court also found that the judge should not have withdrawn an issue from the jury's consideration, as it was a matter for the jury to decide. Furthermore, the court held that the trial judge should have given directions to the jury regarding the similar fact evidence, as it was relevant to the respondent's propensity to commit sexual offences. The court also found that the trial judge erred in not directing the jury to consider the possibility of an innocent infection as a cause of the complainants' injuries.

The High Court allowed the appeal and directed a new trial, as the errors made by the trial judge could have led to a miscarriage of justice. The court emphasised the importance of giving proper directions to the jury in criminal trials, particularly in cases where the evidence is partly circumstantial. The court also highlighted the need for trial judges to carefully consider the admissibility of similar fact evidence and to ensure that the jury is properly directed on all relevant issues. Overall, this case serves as a reminder to trial judges of the importance of providing clear and accurate directions to the jury in criminal trials.

Orders