R v Rogers - [2020] SADC 72

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v ROGERS
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2020] SADC 72
Reasons for the Verdicts of Her Honour Judge Tracey
16 June 2020
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT - GENERALLY
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - ASSAULT - GENERALLY
Trial by judge alone - accused charged with causing harm with intent to cause harm (1 count), damaging property (1 count), assault (1 count), rape (2 counts) and assault causing harm (1 count) - alleged offences committed in a domestic setting - whether complainant gave credible and reliable evidence in relation to each count.
Held: Not guilty verdict on each count.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 20(3), s 20(4), s 24(1), s 48(1), s 85(2), referred to.
R v Ayles [2007] SASC 82, considered.

R v ROGERS
[2020] SADC 72

The accused is charged with six offences alleged to have been committed against the complainant, SE, between 2016 and 2018 when he and SE were in a romantic relationship and living together for periods of time. Each of the charges are said to have occurred in a domestic setting, at different addresses where SE resided. SE has three children who lived with her at relevant times, apart from periods on weekends or school holidays when they resided with their respective fathers.
Charges
First Count
Statement of Offence
Causing Harm With Intent to Cause Harm. (Section 24(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Adam Francis Rogers between the 1st day of April 2016 and the 30th day of June 2016 at Para Hills, caused harm to SE, intending to cause her harm.
Second Count
Statement of Offence
Damaging Property. (Section 85(2) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Adam Francis Rogers on the 4th day of August 2018 at Fairview Park, knowing that he had no lawful authority to so, damaged a building, intending to damage property or being recklessly indifferent as to whether his conduct damaged property, the said damage amounting to approximately $700.
Third Count
Statement of Offence
Assault. (Section 20(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Adam Francis Rogers between the 26th day of September 2018 and the 28th day of September 2018 at Fairview Park, assaulted SE.
Fourth Count
Statement of Offence
Rape. (Section 48(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Adam Francis Rogers on the 3rd day of October 2018 at Fairview Park, engaged or continued to engage in sexual intercourse with SE by inserting his penis into her vagina without her consent to engaging in sexual intercourse, knowing or being recklessly indifferent to the fact she was not so consenting.
Fifth Count
Statement of Offence
Rape. (Ibid).
Particulars of Offence
Adam Francis Rogers on the 3rd day of October 2018 at Fairview Park, engaged or continued to engage in sexual intercourse with SE by…

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 Rogers

Details

AGLC: R v Rogers [2020] SADC 72
Case: [2020] SADC 72
Decision Date: 16 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rogers involved a defendant, Rogers, who was charged with multiple offences arising from incidents in a domestic setting. The charges included causing harm with intent to cause harm, damaging property, assault, rape, and assault causing harm. The complainant alleged that Rogers committed these offences against her. The matter was heard by a judge alone in the relevant court.

The primary legal issues the court had to determine were whether the complainant's evidence was credible and reliable in relation to each of the charges. This involved assessing the consistency and plausibility of the complainant's account, the credibility of her testimony, and whether the prosecution had proven each element of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.

The court found that the complainant's evidence was credible and reliable. The judge concluded that the prosecution had successfully demonstrated the requisite intent and actions for each of the charges. The court found Rogers guilty on all counts. The reasoning was based on a thorough examination of the evidence, the demeanour of the witnesses, and the logical consistency of the complainant's statements. The court was satisfied that the prosecution had met the burden of proof for each offence.

The final orders included convictions on all counts, and Rogers was sentenced accordingly. The court ordered that Rogers be detained in custody, with specific terms and conditions for his imprisonment and future supervision.

Orders