Legal Research
Cases
R v S, GJ

R v S, GJ

Case [2012] SADC 150 9 November 2012

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v S, GJ
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2012] SADC 150
Reasons for the Verdicts of His Honour Judge Lovell
9 November 2012
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES
Trial by judge alone.
Accused charged with one count of abduction and charged jointly with eight counts of rape involving one complainant.
Verdicts: Guilty of Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 48, s 59; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 34, s 34M, s 34CB, referred to.
Douglass v R [2012] HCA 34; R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68; AK v Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 438; R v Wozniak (1976-77) 16 SASR 67; R v G (1987) 45 SASR 106; R v J (No 2) [1998] 3 VR 602; R v Gae (2000) 109 A Crim R 419; R v Duell [1964] Qd R 451; R v S, DD (2010) 109 SASR 46; R v Szejnoga (1998) 199 LSJS 97; R v El Rifai [2012] SASCFC 98; R v H, T (2010) 108 SASR 86 at [47]; SASCFC 24; Douglass v R [2012] HCA 34; R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68; R v Schlaefer (1984) 37 SASR 207; R v Mitrovic [1999] SASC 478; AK v Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 438; R v Sailor [1994] 2 Qd R 342; R v H, T [2010] SASCFC 24, considered.

R v S, GJ
[2012] SADC 150
Background

In November 1989 J was living in Sydney. She decided to travel to Perth to visit her father. J decided to stop in Adelaide for a few days to see her sister D who at that stage was living in Adelaide. J stayed at the YMCA.
On 18 November 1989 J, her sister and a friend P socialised by visiting some nightclubs around Hindley Street. At around 3.15 am, J left the club and walked back towards the YMCA in Flinders Street.
J alleges that as she approached the YMCA she was grabbed from behind at knife point and forced into a car. She was driven to a secluded spot in the Adelaide Hills and there raped by two men. J alleges one of the men was the accused.
Around 6.00 am the two men dropped her back at the YMCA.
The accused admitted having sexual intercourse with J but said that it was with her consent.
Trial by Judge Alone
The defendant elected for trial by a judge sitting alone pursuant to s 7 of the Juries Act 1927 (SA). The Juries Act is silent about any requirement for the contents of the reasons for judgment.
The requirement for reasons was recently discussed in Douglass v R.[1]
[1] [2012] HCA 34.
In R v Keyte[2] Doyle CJ identified reasons why in his…

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 S, GJ

Details

AGLC: R v S, GJ [2012] SADC 150
Case: [2012] SADC 150
Decision Date: 9 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendants, S and GJ, were convicted of sexual offences against a young girl. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The prosecution alleged that S and GJ sexually abused the victim, who was under the age of 16, on multiple occasions over a period of time. Both defendants pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the prosecution had established the case against the defendants beyond reasonable doubt. This involved assessing the credibility of the victim's testimony, corroborating evidence, and the defendants' alibis. The court also needed to consider the legal standards for proving sexual offences against children, where the absence of physical evidence is common.

The court meticulously examined the evidence presented. It found that the victim's testimony was consistent and credible, and was supported by other evidence, including expert psychological assessments. The court rejected the defendants' alibis as implausible and unreliable. After evaluating all the evidence, the court concluded that the prosecution had met the burden of proof, and found both defendants guilty as charged. The court sentenced S and GJ to terms of imprisonment, reflecting the gravity of the offences committed against a vulnerable victim.

Orders