R v Rout - [2023] SADC 58

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v ROUT
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2023] SADC 58
Reasons for the Verdict of her Honour Judge Davison
17 May 2023
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - UNLAWFUL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE OR CARNAL KNOWLEDGE
Jarrod Scott Rout is charged with one count of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a child under the age of 14 years. The allegation is that he performed an act of fellatio on a 5 year old boy. The child was seven years old when he gave unsworn evidence. The accused did not give or call any evidence. Charge proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Verdict: Guilty.
Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) ss 9, 13BA, 28, 29, referred to.
R v K, MC [2018] SASCFC 133; Mule v The Queen [2005] HCA 49; R v Allen (2011) 109 SASR 396, considered.

R v ROUT
[2023] SADC 58
[Criminal]

Jarrod Scott Rout (the accused) is charged with one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under 14.[1] It is alleged that this offence occurred between September and November 2020, when the accused performed an act of fellatio upon a five year old child (‘W’). The offence is alleged to have occurred at the home of W’s stepfather’s aunt. She is often referred to as ‘Nanna Kay’. Nanna Kay is in a relationship with the father of the accused. The accused was 21 years old at the time of the alleged offending.
[1] Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 s 49(1)
The prosecution case is that W and the accused were in a room at Nanna Kay’s house during the day. The accused is alleged to have pulled down W’s shorts and jocks and then put his penis into his mouth. He is then alleged to have slapped W’s penis until it became hard and bit his penis during the course of fellatio.
On 3 March 2023, the accused elected for trial by judge alone. The application was granted and the matter proceeded without a jury.[2]
[2] Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7.
There was a preliminary matter in respect of the admissibility of the statements that had been obtained pursuant to s 13BA of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA). The primary interviews were in January 2021, when the complainant was five years old. I watched the interviews and heard argument in relation to the admissibility of them. I subsequently ruled that the interviews were not admissible in that form as I was not satisfied that the complainant was capable of giving unsworn evidence at the time of those interviews.
The prosecution then elected to call the complainant to give evidence.
The accused is charged with the offence of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 14 years. There are 2 elements that must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Firstly, that the accused had sexual intercourse with W. In this case, it is alleged to…

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 Rout

Details

AGLC: R v Rout [2023] SADC 58
Case: [2023] SADC 58
Decision Date: 17 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Rout, the defendant was charged with sexual offences, including unlawful sexual intercourse and carnal knowledge, against a minor. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the defendant appealed against his convictions and sentences. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge correctly applied the law in determining the defendant's guilt and in sentencing. The court was also required to consider whether the trial judge erred in his directions to the jury regarding the consent of the victim.

The court held that the trial judge had correctly applied the law in determining the defendant's guilt. The court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court also found that the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the consent of the victim were appropriate and did not constitute a miscarriage of justice. The court further held that the trial judge had exercised his discretion in sentencing appropriately, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court dismissed the defendant's appeal against his convictions and sentences. The court found that the trial judge had correctly applied the law and that there was no error in the trial judge's directions to the jury or in his sentencing. The court held that the defendant's convictions and sentences were appropriate and should be upheld. The court emphasised the importance of protecting minors from sexual offences and the need for the courts to take a firm stance in dealing with such offences.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant's appeal be dismissed, and that his convictions and sentences be upheld. The court emphasised the importance of protecting minors from sexual offences and the need for the courts to take a firm stance in dealing with such offences. The court also noted that the defendant's conduct was reprehensible and that the sentences imposed were appropriate in the circumstances.

Orders