Legal Research
Cases
R v S, PM

R v S, PM

Case [2023] SADC 83 7 July 2023

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v S, PM
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2023] SADC 83
Reasons for the Verdicts of his Honour Judge Allen
7 July 2023
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - MAINTAINING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH CHILD AND PERSISTENT SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILD
The accused elected for trial by judge alone on two counts of gross indecency, two counts of inciting or procuring a child to commit an indecent act and one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child contrary to ss 58(1)(a), 63B(1)(a) and 50(1) respectively, of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA).
It is alleged that between 31 December 2004 and 1 June 2013, the accused committed the acts against his stepdaughters [B], [S] and [C] of gross indecency and inciting or procuring a child to commit an indecent act against [B] and [S] and maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with [C] by engaging in two or more unlawful sexual acts with [C], namely: (a) inciting or causing or procuring her to touch him on his penis on more than one occasion; (b) inciting or causing or procuring her to masturbate his penis on more than one occasion; (c) inciting or causing or procuring her to touch his testicles on more than one occasion; (d) exposing his penis to her on more than one occasion; and (e) touching her breasts on more than one occasion.
Verdict: Count 1 - Guilty;
Count 2 - Guilty;
Count 3 - Not Guilty;
Count 4 - Not Guilty; and
Count 5 - Not Guilty.

Evidence Act 1929 (SA) ss 34CB, 34M, 34P, 34S, referred to.
R v Nieterink (1999) 76 SASR 56; R v M, BJ [2011] SASCFC 50; Hoch v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 292; R v Cassebohm (2011) 109 SASR 465; R v Maiolo (No 2) (2013) 117 SASR 1; R v W, PK [2016] SASCFC 5; R v R, PA [2019] SASCFC 19; R v England [2013] SASCFC 79; R v Jones [2018] SASCFC 80; McPhillamy v The Queen (2018) 92 ALJR 1045; R v MJJ; R v CJN [2013] SASCFC 51; R v C, CA [2013] SASCFC 137; MDM v The Queen (2020) 136 SASR 360; DES v The Queen [2020] SASCFC 32; Phillips v The Queen (2006) 225 CLR 303; R v Bonython-Wright (2013) 117 SASR 410; Sexton v The Queen [2022] SASCA 73; Hughes v The Queen (2017) 263 CLR 338; Murray v The Queen (2002) 211 CLR 193, considered.

R v S, PM
[2023] SADC 83
Criminal
Overview

On an Information dated 8 May 2020, S, PM is charged with the following offences:
First Count
Statement of Offence
Gross Indecency. (Section 58(1)(a) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
[S, PM] between the 31^st day of December 2004 and the 1^st day of January…

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, PM

Details

AGLC: R v S, PM [2023] SADC 83
Case: [2023] SADC 83
Decision Date: 7 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v S, PM, the accused faced charges related to sexual offences against a child. The dispute was brought before the court, where the prosecution alleged that the accused engaged in a sexual relationship with a child and committed acts of persistent sexual abuse. The court's task was to determine the validity of these charges and the appropriate legal consequences.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had maintained a sexual relationship with a child and committed acts of persistent sexual abuse. This required the court to carefully examine the evidence presented, including the testimonies of the child and other witnesses, as well as any expert opinions or forensic evidence. The court also had to consider the legal definitions and elements of the offences charged.

The court thoroughly evaluated the evidence and testimonies provided during the trial. It determined that the prosecution had successfully proven the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the accused had indeed engaged in a sexual relationship with the child and had committed acts of persistent sexual abuse. The court based its decision on the credibility of the child's testimony, corroborated by other evidence, which established the accused's guilt. The court then proceeded to deliver its judgment and sentence in accordance with the law.

The final orders of the court included a conviction on both charges, with the court imposing a sentence that reflected the gravity of the offences. The accused was found guilty of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child and of persistent sexual abuse of a child. The court outlined the sentence, which included imprisonment and other conditions, as deemed appropriate by the law.

Orders