R v RM (No 4)

Case [2023] NSWDC 93


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v RM (No 4) [2023] NSWDC 93
Hearing dates: 14 March – 27 March 2023
Date of orders: 23 March 2023
Decision date: 23 March 2023
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Abadee DCJ
Decision:

See paragraph 22

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – 11 alleged sexual offences against biological daughter – defence application for directed verdicts on counts 5, 6 and 10

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 61H, 61HB, 61KC, 66, 66C

Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) s 306I

Cases Cited:

Doney v R (1990) 171 CLR 207

Johnson v R [2017] NSWCCA 278

LK v The Queen (2010) 241 CLR 177

R v R (1989) 18 NSWLR 74

Texts Cited:

Nil

Category:Procedural rulings
Parties: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP)
RM (accused)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr C Reynolds for the ODPP
Ms K Hogan for the accused

Solicitors:
ODPP
AJA Associates for the accused
File Number(s): 2020/00213495
Publication restriction: Non-publication order regarding the identity of the accused and the complainant

JUDGMENT

  1. The accused is tried on indictment of 11 counts of sexual offences allegedly committed against his daughter arising from 9 alleged incidents occurring when she was aged between 9 and 18. 

  2. The Crown has closed its case. Instantly, Counsel for the accused applied for directed verdicts on three of those counts. They are as follows. 

Count 5: contrary to s 66C(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (the "Crimes Act"), between 17 January 2015 and 31 December 2015, at Glendenning in the state of New South Wales, the accused had sexual intercourse with the complainant, a person above the age of ten years and under the age of 14 years; namely, 13 years, in circumstances of aggravation, namely, the complainant was under his authority. 

Count 6: contrary to s 66C(4) of the Crimes Act, the accused, between 17 January 2015 and 16 January 2017, at Glendenning in the state of New South Wales, had sexual intercourse with the complainant, a person above the age of ten years and under the age of 16 years; namely, 13 or 14 years, in circumstances of aggravation, namely, the complainant was under his authority.

Count 10: contrary to s 61KC(a) of the Crimes Act, that the accused on 19 July 2020, at Glendenning in the state of New South Wales, sexually touched the complainant without her consent and knowing that she was not consenting.

  1. A verdict of not guilty may be directed only if "there is a defect in the evidence such that taken at its highest, it will not sustain a verdict of guilty":  Doney v R (1990) 171 CLR 207 at [214] - [215]; LK v The Queen (2010) 241 CLR 177 at [29]. It is not enough that the trial judge forms a view that a guilty verdict would be unsafe or unsatisfactory" R v R (1989) 18 NSWLR 74.

  2. The applications are made on the basis that on each of the counts identified and…

Continue reading R v RM (No 4)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v RM (No 4) [2023] NSWDC 93
Case
[2023] NSWDC 93
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v RM (No 4) involved the respondent, RM, who was charged with eleven sexual offences against his biological daughter. The case came before the court as the respondent sought directed verdicts on counts 5, 6, and 10. These counts related to allegations of sexual assault, indecent assault, and sexual intercourse without consent. The central legal issues for the court were to determine the sufficiency of the Crown's case against the respondent for these particular counts and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a directed verdict in favour of the respondent.

The court found that a directed verdict could be given on count 5 as the evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent sexually assaulted the victim on the specified date. On counts 6 and 10, the court concluded that the Crown had presented a prima facie case. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to establish the elements of indecent assault and sexual intercourse without consent, thus the directed verdicts were not appropriate. The court emphasised the need for a thorough examination of the evidence to ensure that the jury was properly directed on each count.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the application for directed verdicts on counts 5, 6, and 10. Count 5 was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of sexual assault, while counts 6 and 10 were retained for the jury's consideration due to the prima facie case presented by the Crown. The court's decision was based on a careful analysis of the evidence and the applicable legal standards for directed verdicts in criminal proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph 22

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.