Legal Research
Cases
R v Sanchez

R v Sanchez

Case [2024] SADC 102 6 September 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v SANCHEZ
[2024] SADC 102
Judgment of his Honour Judge Durrant
6 September 2024
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT
The accused is charged with five counts of indecent assault and one count of rape - trial by judge without a jury.
Verdict: Not guilty of Counts 1 to 6.
Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) ss 13A, 34N; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 46, 47, 56, referred to.
BCM v The Queen [2013] HCA 48; Douglass v The Queen [2012] HCA 34; R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68; AK v Western Australia [2008] 232 CLR 438; Aiken v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 213; Fitzgerald v Kennard (1995) 38 NSWLR 184; R v Court [1989] AC 28; Boughey v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 10; M, B v Police (2019) 134 SASR 575; DPP v Morgan [1975] 2 All ER 347; R v Kimber [1983] 3 All ER 316; R v C, M (2014) 246 A Crim R 21;; R v Thompson [2018] SASCFC 104; R v Murphy (1988) 52 SASR 186; R v Turvey (2017) 127 SASR 425; R v Rahmanian [2010] SASC 137; R v Blayney (2003) 87 SASR 354; Higgs v The Queen (2011) 111 SASR 42; R v Bland [2001] SASC 57; R v Ball (1991) 56 SASR 126, 127; R v Moores (2017) 128 SASR 340; State of South Australia v Crossley [2020] SASFC 128, considered.

R v SANCHEZ
[2024] SADC 102
Introduction

During 2019, the accused Juan Carlos Ospina Sanchez worked as a dance teacher at the Latino Grooves Dance Studio on King William Street, Adelaide.[1]
[1] Exhibit P1 Agreed Facts at [1].
The complainant Victoria Galea attended some of the group classes conducted by the accused that year.
In August 2019, the accused and the complainant entered, as a professional and amateur couple, the ‘World Salsa Solo’ dance competition to be held on 5, 6, 7 and 8 December 2019, at the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre.[2]
[2] T28.32-36; T28.5-9.
Between 6 August 2019, and 4 December 2019, to learn and practice a competition routine choreographed by the accused, the complainant attended 16 private lessons and a performance at the studio.[3] The complainant and the accused subsequently performed that routine together at the Brisbane competition.
[3] Exhibit P1 Agreed Facts at [3].
The prosecution alleges the accused, during private lessons two, three, four and five, and once during one of lessons seven to ten, indecently assaulted the complainant and, during lesson six, raped her.[4]
[4] Information filed 10 February 2023 (FDN11).
The accused elected to be tried by judge without a jury.[5]
[5] Juries Act 1927 (SA), s 7.
The complainant was the crucial witness at trial. The prosecution case relied on the acceptance of her evidence, beyond reasonable…

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 Sanchez

Details

AGLC: R v Sanchez [2024] SADC 102
Case: [2024] SADC 102
Decision Date: 6 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Sanchez, the appellant was convicted of the sexual assault of a woman. The respondent, who was the victim, alleged that the appellant had non-consensual sexual intercourse with her. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The appellant contended that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the sexual intercourse was non-consensual. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the conviction.

The court was required to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that the sexual intercourse was non-consensual. The court considered the evidence presented, including the testimony of the victim and other witnesses, and the circumstances surrounding the incident. The court also considered the legal principles governing the proof of non-consensual sexual intercourse, including the requirement that the prosecution must prove that the complainant did not consent to the sexual activity. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the sexual intercourse was non-consensual and that the appellant was guilty of the offence of sexual assault.

The court emphasised the importance of the complainant's testimony and the need for the jury to consider the credibility of the complainant and the appellant. The court also noted that the jury was entitled to draw inferences from the evidence and that the verdict should be upheld if there was sufficient evidence to support it. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the evidence was insufficient and upheld the conviction. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed and the conviction be upheld.

Orders