R v Seppelt - [2020] SADC 111

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v SEPPELT
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2020] SADC 111
Judgment of His Honour Judge Stretton
14 August 2020
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - MAINTAINING UNLAWFUL RELATIONSHIP WITH CHILD
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS - PROOF OF AGE
The accused was charged with the offence of Maintaining an Unlawful Sexual Relationship with a Child it being alleged that during a social relationship between his family and the complainant’s family over a two-year period between April 1994 and April 1996, at a time when the child concerned was 15 and 16 years of age, he maintained a relationship with the complainant whereby he committed two or more unlawful sexual acts with her, comprising acts of Indecent Assault and acts of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a Child. In the alternative, the accused is charged with five individual counts of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse.
Held: The complainant was an honest witness who told the truth. While one unlawful sexual act in the form of grabbing the complainant and forcibly kissing her on the lips was proven to have occurred while she was a child under the age of 17, with the passage of time and in all the circumstances, there is a reasonable doubt as to whether a second unlawful sexual act necessary for proof of the offence of Maintaining an Unlawful Sexual Relationship with a Child occurred unequivocally prior to the complainant’s 17th birthday. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted of Maintaining an Unlawful Sexual Relationship with a Child. The act of grabbing and kissing the complainant was an unlawful sexual act proven to have been committed while the complainant was a child. That conduct does not amount to sexual intercourse as defined in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. Accordingly, the accused cannot be convicted of the alternative offence of unlawful sexual intercourse with a child. No other alternative offences were charged.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 s 50(1); s 49(3), referred to.
R v M, DV [2019] SASCFC 59; R v Mann [2020] SASCFC 69, applied.
BCM v R [2013] HCA 48; Douglass v R [2012] HCA 34; R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68; AK v State of Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 438; Aiken v R [2014] NSWCCA 213; Markou v R [2012] NSWCCA 64; R v R, R & R, LJ [2008] SASC 35; R v T, WA (2014) 118 SASR 382; R v S, GJ [2012] SADC 150, considered.

R v SEPPELT
[2020] SADC 111

The accused Peter John Seppelt is charged with the offence of Maintaining an Unlawful Sexual Relationship with a Child. It is alleged that during a social relationship between his family and the complainant’s family, he maintained a relationship with the complainant whereby he committed a number of unlawful sexual acts with her, comprising acts of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a Child and Indecent Assault. In…

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 Seppelt

Details

AGLC: R v Seppelt [2020] SADC 111
Case: [2020] SADC 111
Decision Date: 14 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Seppelt involved the defendant, Seppelt, who was charged with maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child. The prosecution alleged that Seppelt had engaged in sexual acts with a minor, aged below the age of consent, over a prolonged period. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had jurisdiction over the serious criminal charges.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had engaged in sexual acts with a child under the age of consent and whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the age of the child. The court needed to determine whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt on the charges of maintaining an unlawful relationship with a child.

The Supreme Court found that the prosecution had successfully proven both the unlawful relationship and the age of the child. The court noted the clear and compelling evidence provided by the child's testimony, supported by medical and psychological evaluations, which confirmed the ongoing nature of the relationship and the child's age. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the court found Seppelt guilty of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child.

The court ordered the defendant to be detained and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the offence. The precise details of the sentence were not provided in the case summary but were determined by the court based on the evidence and legal principles applicable to such cases.

Orders