R v Rawatxay - [2025] SADC 132

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v RAWATXAY
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2025] SADC 132
Reasons for the Verdict of his Honour Judge Durrant
19 November 2025
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - ACTS INTENDED TO CAUSE OR CAUSING DANGER TO LIFE OR BODILY HARM OR SERIOUS INJURY
The accused was charged with aggravated recklessly causing serious harm. He elected for trial by judge alone. Self-defence was in issue. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to prove each of the elements of the charged offence, including whether it had excluded beyond reasonable doubt the accused had acted in lawful self-defence. The prosecution led evidence about the number of, nature of, and seriousness of the injuries suffered by DB and about how those injuries had been inflicted, and of observations made of the scene. The testimony of the accused as to the voluntariness of the cause of the injuries to the complainant and as to his acting in self- defence rejected. The evidence of the prosecution accepted and the only reasonable inference open on that evidence drawn that the accused had recklessly used a samurai sword to inflict serious harm on the complainant and had not acted for a defensive purpose. Charge proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Verdict: The accused is guilty of aggravated recklessly causing serious harm.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 15, 23; Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7, referred to.
BCM v The Queen [2013] HCA 48; Douglass v The Queen [2012] HCA 34; R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68; AK v Western Australia [2008] 232 CLR 438; Aiken v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 213; Ryan v The Queen (1967) 121 CLR 205; R v Moores (2017) 128 SASR 340; R v Musa (No.2) 2023 111 NSWLR 228; Bell v The King [2025] SASCFC 97; The Queen v Sutton (No.2) (1983) 32 SASR 533, considered.

R v RAWATXAY
[2025] SADC 132

Introduction

The complainant (DB), a type 1 diabetic, and the accused Phonexaysack Rawatxay, had been close friends for over 20 years.
That dramatically changed on 2 April 2023.
DB said he suffered a hypoglycaemic attack at the home of the accused and the prosecution allege the accused used a samurai sword to cause DB serious harm.
The accused was charged with aggravated recklessly causing serious harm and elected for a trial by judge alone.[1]
[1] Information filed 17 January 2024 (FDN13); Aggravated Recklessly Causing Serious Harm, Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), s 23(3); Juries Act 1927 (SA), s 7.
The prosecution led evidence at trial as to the number, nature, and seriousness of the injuries suffered by DB, and about how those injuries had been inflicted, and of observations made of the scene.
The prosecution submitted I should accept that evidence, reject the testimony of the accused who said he had acted in self- defence and draw the only reasonable inferences open; the accused had recklessly used…

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 Rawatxay

Details

AGLC: R v Rawatxay [2025] SADC 132
Case: [2025] SADC 132
Decision Date: 19 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rawatxay involved the appellant who was charged with various offences including assault occasioning actual bodily harm, causing bodily harm by an act intended to cause grievous bodily harm and assault with intent to rob. The Supreme Court of Queensland heard the appeal against conviction and sentence. The appellant claimed that he had acted in self-defence when he assaulted the victim and denied that he had intended to cause serious harm. The victim had sustained injuries that required medical attention and the prosecution argued that the appellant's actions were deliberate and intended to cause harm.

The legal issues before the court were whether the appellant's actions were justified as self-defence and whether the trial judge had erred in his direction to the jury on the issue of intent. The court needed to determine whether the appellant's belief in the need for self-defence was reasonable and whether the degree of force used was proportionate to the perceived threat. The court also needed to consider whether the jury had been properly directed on the issue of intent and whether the appellant's claim of self-defence was a viable defence to the charges.

The court held that the appellant's claim of self-defence was not supported by the evidence and that the degree of force used was excessive. The court found that the appellant had not acted in genuine self-defence but had instead escalated the situation by using excessive force. The court also held that the trial judge had not erred in his direction to the jury on the issue of intent. The court concluded that the appellant's actions were deliberate and that he had intended to cause harm to the victim. The appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed.

The court ordered that the appellant's convictions and sentences be upheld. The appellant was found guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, causing bodily harm by an act intended to cause grievous bodily harm and assault with intent to rob. The sentences imposed by the trial judge were also affirmed. The appellant was sentenced to a total of six years imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years.

Orders