R v RC - [2013] ACTSC 139

R V RC
[2013] ACTSC 139 (19 July 2013)

CRIMINAL LAW – jurisdiction practice and procedure – trial by judge alone – sexual intercourse without consent – assault with intent to have sexual intercourse – accused acquitted
CRIMINAL LAW – particular offences – offences against the person – sexual offences – sexual intercourse without consent – assault with intent to have sexual intercourse – no issue of principle

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 50, 53(1), 54, 57
Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT), ss 43, 46
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), ss 68B, 68C

Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250
Iannella v French (1968) 119 CLR 84
Nguyen v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 24
R v DM [2010] ACTSC 137
R v Nguyen [2011] ACTSC 25
R v Shevlin [2013] ACTSC 88

No. SCC 196 of 2009

Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 19 July 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 196 of 2009
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

THE QUEEN
v
RC

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  19 July 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT FINDS THAT:

That RC is not guilty of unlawfully assaulting FKM on 14 November 2008 with intent to have sexual intercourse with her.

That RC is not guilty of engaging on 14 November 2008 in sexual intercourse with FKM without her consent and being reckless as to whether she consented.

That RC is not guilty of unlawfully assaulting FKM on 22 November 2008 with intent to engage in sexual intercourse with her.

That RC is not guilty of engaging on 22 November 2008 in sexual intercourse with FKM without her consent and being reckless as to whether she consented.

That RC is not guilty of engaging on 22 November 2008 in sexual intercourse with FKM without her consent and being reckless as to whether she consented.

That RC is not guilty of engaging on 22 November 2008 in sexual intercourse with FKM without her consent and being reckless as to whether she consented.

That RC is not guilty of engaging on 22 November 2008 in sexual intercourse with FKM without her consent and being reckless as to whether she consented.

On 22 November 2008, FKM, a woman who is the complainant in these proceedings, attended at Belconnen Police Station and reported that she had been sexually assaulted by the accused.

As a result, the accused was later arrested and charged with a number of offences against FKM.

On 22 May 2009, he was committed for trial to this Court and, on 22 March 2010, he signed an election for trial by judge alone under s 68B of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT). An indictment containing seven counts was filed on 10 March 2010 and he was arraigned on 11 May 2010, pleading not guilty to all counts.

The trial commenced on 16 May 2011 and concluded on 20 May 2011 when I reserved my decision.

The offences

The accused pleaded not guilty to an indictment…

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 RC

Details

AGLC: R v RC [2013] ACTSC 139
Case: [2013] ACTSC 139
Decision Date: 19 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v RC, the respondent was charged with three offences of sexual intercourse without consent and two offences of assault with intent to have sexual intercourse. The trial was held in the County Court of Victoria. The accused was acquitted of all charges after the trial judge found that the prosecution had not proven the case against him beyond reasonable doubt.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide were whether the accused had the requisite intent to have sexual intercourse with the complainant and whether the complainant had consented to the sexual acts. The court also had to consider whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The accused argued that the sexual acts were consensual and that there was no intent to commit the offences.

The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The judge accepted the accused's evidence that the sexual acts were consensual and that there was no intent to commit the offences. The court found that the complainant's evidence was not credible and that there were inconsistencies in her statements. The judge also found that the prosecution had not adduced sufficient evidence to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court acquitted the accused of all charges.

Orders