R v Singleton No. DCCRM-97-213 Judgment No. D3619 - [1997] SADC 3619

Court

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Reasons For The Verdicts of His Honour Judge Bishop

Hearing

12/05/97 to 15/05/97.

Catchwords

Unlawful sexual intercourse offences alleged to have been committed by a step-father against his 22 year old step-daughter from when she was aged between eight and 15 years old - relationship evidence - delay of between seven and 14 years in the allegations being tried - death of the accused's wife (the mother of the complainant) six years after the allegations were initially withdrawn and three months before they were renewed - application for stay of prosecution dismissed - legal authorities referred to - formulation of appropriate legal directions, including as to separate offences; relationship evidence; delay in making and prosecuting complaint; absence of recent complaint; absence of independent supporting evidence; warning to scrutinize with care; discrepancies, inconsistencies and peculiarities in evidence; disadvantageous effects upon accused of delay and death; conflicting versions - whether complainant's evidence of complaint is admissible in absence of evidence from recipient - consideration of the evidence - verdicts of not guilty entered - accused discharged.

Representation

R:
Counsel: Mr P F Muscat - Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions

Accused Brian John Singleton:
Counsel: Mr M T Boylan - Solicitors: Hume Taylor &; Co (Whyalla)

DCCRM-97-213

Judgment No. D3619

5 June 1997

(Criminal)

RvSINGLETON

Criminal

Judge Bishop

Background

Brian John Singleton ("the accused") was tried before me sitting as judge alone at Port Augusta between Monday 12 May 1997 and Thursday 15 May 1997 for three alleged offences of unlawful sexual intercourse with his step-daughter ("M") at Whyalla between 1981 and 1991, namely,

count 1- unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under 12 - in that, between about 7 March 1981 and 6 March 1984, he had sexual intercourse with M, a person under the age of 12 years, by causing her to perform an act of fellatio upon him: contrary to section 49 (1) of the Criminal Law ConsolidationAct, 1935 ("the Act");

count 2- unlawful sexual intercourse - in that, between about 7 March 1987 and 6 March 1988, he had sexual intercourse with M, a person of the age of about 12 years, by inserting his finger into her vagina: contrary to section 49
(3) of the Act; and

count 3- unlawful sexual intercourse - in that, between about 1 April 1990 and 1 January 1991, he had vaginal sexual intercourse with M, a person of the age of about 15 years: contrary to section 49 (3) of the Act.

Being satisfied that special reasons here existed for dispensing with compliance with the time requirements of the Juries Rules 1996, as to election for trial by judge alone, namely, funding problems and the late supply by the Crown of a detailed statement from M, both of which resulted in the accused not being able to obtain the considered advice of counsel until the day before the trial was listed to commence, such dispensation was here granted.

Application for stay of proceedings

As a…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Singleton No. DCCRM-97-213 Judgment No. D3619 and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1997] SADC 3619
Decision Date: 5 June 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The District Court of South Australia heard a case against Brian John Singleton, who was charged with three counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with his 22-year-old step-daughter, M. The alleged offences occurred when M was between the ages of eight and 15 years old. The case involved complex issues, including the admissibility of relationship evidence, the delay in making and prosecuting the complaint, the absence of recent complaints, the absence of independent supporting evidence, and the impact of the accused's wife's death on the proceedings. The court provided legal directions to the jury regarding the use of evidence, the onus of proof, and the evaluation of the complainant's evidence. After careful consideration of all the evidence, the jury found the accused not guilty of all three charges due to reasonable doubt. The accused was subsequently discharged.

Orders