R v Ryle - [2024] SADC 95

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v RYLE
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2024] SADC 95
Reasons for the Verdict of her Honour Judge Telfer
6 August 2024
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - SEXUAL OFFENCES
The accused was charged with procuring a child to engage in, or submit to, a sexual activity. It was alleged that he procured a 14-year-old child to engage in or submit to sexualised conversations over Facebook Messenger. The child was not previously known to the accused, and they connected with one other via social media. The prosecution relied on records of relevant communications stored on a mobile telephone obtained from a child who is alleged to be the victim in the matter. The child was not called to give evidence. The prosecution sought to prove that it was the accused who was the user of one Facebook Messenger account which participated in the conversation, and that the child was the user of the other. The prosecution has proved that the accused was the user of the Facebook Messenger service which communicated with a service proved to be used by a child. The messages on their face proved that the child was procured to submit to a sexual activity, and that was the accused’s intent.
Held: The accused is Guilty of procuring a child to engage in, or submit to, a sexual activity.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) 63B; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) 34P, referred to.
R v Symons (2018) 130 SASR 503; R v Ryle [2024] SADC 59; R v Winner (1995) 79 A Crim R; R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68, considered.

R v RYLE
[2024] SADC 95

The accused Mark Ryle is charged with one count of procuring a child to engage in, or submit to, a sexual activity, pursuant to section 63B(3)(a) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act (CLCA). Mr Ryle elected for trial by judge alone.
The prosecution allege that between 1 November 2022 and 30 November 2022 Mr Ryle communicated with a child who I will refer to by the pseudonym ‘Rebecca’. The communications occurred over the electronic communication platform Facebook Messenger. It is alleged that the accused was the user of a Facebook profile ‘Mark Green’ which he used to communicate with Rebecca. The prosecution allege that the accused, in the course of those communications, procured Rebecca to engage in or submit to sexual activity. The sexual activity alleged was sexualised discussions, an activity falling within the broad definition of sexual activities discussed in R v Symons.[1]
[1] (2018) 130 SASR 503 at [3]-[4].
In November 2022 Rebecca was 14 years of age.[2] She was a vulnerable child in the care of the State living in a group home with paid carers. Her behaviour and circumstances had brought her into contact with the youth criminal justice system and she had an appetite for cigarettes and illicit drugs.
[2] Exhibit P7, Birth Certificate.
Rebecca was not called to give evidence…

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 Ryle

Details

AGLC: R v Ryle [2024] SADC 95
Case: [2024] SADC 95
Decision Date: 6 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents were convicted in the County Court of Victoria for a number of sexual offences against children. Their convictions were quashed by the Court of Appeal and the matter was remitted to the County Court for retrial. The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed to the High Court. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the burden of proof were sufficient to protect the respondents' right to a fair trial under s 80 of the Australian Constitution. The court found that the trial judge's directions were sufficient and quashed the Court of Appeal's decision, reinstating the original convictions. The court held that the trial judge's directions, taken as a whole, were sufficient to protect the respondents' right to a fair trial. The court found that the trial judge had sufficiently directed the jury that it was the prosecution's responsibility to prove the respondents' guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the respondents were entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt. The court also found that the trial judge had not erred in failing to give an explicit direction regarding the presumption of innocence, as the presumption was implicitly included in the directions given. The High Court held that the trial judge's directions to the jury were sufficient to protect the respondents' right to a fair trial, and quashed the Court of Appeal's decision. The original convictions were reinstated.

Orders