R v RL (No 1) - [2016] NSWDC 162

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v RL (No 1) [2016] NSWDC 162
Hearing dates: 1 August 2016 – 4 August 2016
Date of orders: 05 August 2017
Decision date: 05 August 2016
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Berman SC
Decision:
The accused is found not guilty on counts 1,3,5 and 6 on the indictment
The accused is found guilty of count 7 on the indictment.,
The accused is convicted by his pleas of guilty on counts 2 and 4 on the indictment.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment - Judge alone trial - Historical sexual assault - Young boy alleged to have had carnal knowledge with his sister - Accused conclusively presumed to be incapable of committing offence - Crown concedes accused must be acquitted on one count - Count should never have appeared on indictment - Absence of specific evidence regarding issue of doli incapax
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act
Cases Cited: C (a minor) v DPP [1995] UKHL 15 at [38].
R v Waite [1892] 2 QB 600
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: The Crown
RL
Representation:
Counsel:
P Rosser QC - Accused
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions
Leanne Moystyn-Turner - Accused

File Number(s): 2014/00270745
Publication restriction: There is to be no publication of the name of the complainant and of any material which may identify the complainant. That would include the name of the accused.

Judgment

Introduction

On 1 August 2016 the Crown presented an indictment containing 7 counts against the accused RL.
The counts and the accused’s pleas to them were as follows:

Count 1 an allegation of carnal knowledge – plea of not guilty,

Count 2 an allegation of indecent assault laid in the alternative to count 1 - plea of guilty,

Count 3 an allegation of carnal knowledge – plea of not guilty,

Count 4 an allegation of indecent assault laid in the alternative to count 3 - plea of guilty,

Counts 5 and 6 were allegations that the accused incited two others to have carnal knowledge with the complainant - pleas of not guilty and,

Count 7 was an allegation of indecent assault – also a plea of not guilty.

It is I who will determine the appropriate verdicts in this trial, an election for trial by judge alone having been made by the accused and consented to by the prosecution.
There is to be no publication of any evidence which would identify or tend to identify the complainant in this matter. That would include publication of the name of the accused.

Summary of the evidence.

Complainant

The complainant, now 62, alleges that the accused committed a number of offences against her between when she was 5 and 15 years old. She is the younger sister of the accused. There is about 6 years between them. The complainant and the accused have 4 other brothers P, T, F (known as J) and R. The accused was the oldest of the siblings.
All the witnesses and the accused have the same family name.…

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 RL (No 1)

Details

AGLC: R v RL (No 1) [2016] NSWDC 162
Case: [2016] NSWDC 162
Decision Date: 05 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v RL (No 1) involved a complex set of charges against the accused, RL, who was alleged to have committed various sexual offences against his younger sister over a period of time. The matter was heard by a judge sitting alone in the relevant Australian court. The primary dispute centred on the accused's capacity to commit the offences due to his age at the time of the alleged incidents.

The legal issues that required resolution by the court included the accused's doli incapax, a doctrine that historically protected children under a certain age from being held criminally responsible for sexual offences. The court had to determine whether the accused was above or below the age of criminal responsibility at the relevant times. Another issue was whether the court should have considered the charge of carnal knowledge as it was not supported by specific evidence.

The court ruled that the accused was conclusively presumed to be incapable of committing the offence due to his age, leading to his acquittal on certain counts. The Crown conceded that the accused must be acquitted on one count as it should never have appeared on the indictment. The court found that there was no specific evidence regarding the issue of doli incapax, which was critical in determining the accused's capacity to commit the offences. The accused was found not guilty on counts 1, 3, 5 and 6 on the indictment, and found guilty of count 7 on the indictment. Additionally, the accused was convicted by his pleas of guilty on counts 2 and 4 on the indictment.

Orders

Orders of the court

The accused is found not guilty on counts 1,3,5 and 6 on the indictment

The accused is found guilty of count 7 on the indictment.,

The accused is convicted by his pleas of guilty on counts 2 and 4 on the indictment.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v RL (No 1) [2016] NSWDC 162
Hearing dates:	1 August 2016 – 4 August 2016
Date of orders:	05 August 2017
Decision date:	05 August 2016
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Berman SC
Decision:	The accused is found not guilty on counts 1,3,5 and 6 on the indictment The accused is found guilty of count 7 on the indictment., The accused is convicted by his pleas of guilty on counts 2 and 4 on the indictment.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment - Judge alone trial - Historical sexual assault - Young boy alleged to have had carnal knowledge with his sister - Accused conclusively presumed to be incapable of committing offence - Crown concedes accused must be acquitted on one count - Count should never have appeared on indictment - Absence of specific evidence regarding issue of doli incapax
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act
Cases Cited:	C (a minor) v DPP [1995] UKHL 15 at [38]. R v Waite [1892] 2 QB 600
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	The Crown RL
Representation:	Counsel: P Rosser QC - Accused Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions Leanne Moystyn-Turner - Accused
File Number(s):	2014/00270745
Publication restriction:	There is to be no publication of the name of the complainant and of any material which may identify the complainant. That would include the name of the accused.