Legal Research
Cases
R v Smith

R v Smith

Case [2024] SADC 113 20 September 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v SMITH
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2024] SADC 113
Judgment of his Honour Judge Durrant
20 September 2024
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT
The accused is charged with one count of rape - trial by judge alone without a jury.
Verdict: Not guilty.
Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 46; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 34, 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; 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; R v Moores (2017) 128 SASR 340; R v Loader (2004) 89 SASR 204; R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12; Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; R v Wildy (2011) 111 SASR 189, considered.

R v SMITH
[2024] SADC 113
Introduction

The prosecution alleges the accused Clement Smith, on 22 April 2014, at an address in Edwardstown, raped the complainant, NT.[1]
[1] Information filed 13 July 2023.
The accused elected to be tried by judge without a jury.[2]
[2] Juries Act 1927 (SA), s 7.
The complainant was the crucial witness at trial. The prosecution case relies on the acceptance of her evidence beyond reasonable doubt she had been asleep when the accused inserted two of his fingers into her vagina.
While not obliged to do so, the accused gave evidence. He denied he had inserted his fingers into her vagina. He said she had been awake and rejected him when he tried to kiss her. He said he then quickly left the house in embarrassment.
Even if I do not accept that evidence of the accused, it is still for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Rejection of the evidence of the accused would not prove the prosecution case, nor make it stronger.
It is not enough therefore for the prosecution to show mere suspicion of guilt or that the accused is probably guilty. He is not to be convicted unless his guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
My reasons for verdict are set out below.[3]
[3] Sufficient reasons must be given to properly explain my verdict but I am not obliged to express all matters, ‘which necessarily have to be stated to a Jury, unfamiliar with the basic principles of law’; BCM v The Queen [2013] HCA 48; Douglass v The Queen [2012] HCA 34 [14]; R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68;

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 Smith

Details

AGLC: R v Smith [2024] SADC 113
Case: [2024] SADC 113
Decision Date: 20 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Smith was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant, Smith, was charged with the offence of rape. The complainant alleged that Smith had engaged in non-consensual sexual intercourse with her. Smith pleaded not guilty and the matter proceeded to trial. The jury found Smith guilty of the offence of rape.

The central legal issue for the court to determine was whether the complainant had consented to sexual intercourse with Smith. The court had to examine the evidence presented to determine whether Smith had reasonable grounds to believe that the complainant was consenting. The court also had to consider the legal definition of consent under Queensland law.

The court found that the complainant had not consented to sexual intercourse with Smith. The court determined that Smith had reasonable grounds to believe that the complainant was not consenting, as she had expressed her lack of consent on multiple occasions. The court also found that the complainant's behaviour was consistent with someone who was not consenting. The court held that Smith's belief that the complainant was consenting was unreasonable, and therefore he could not rely on the defence of honest and reasonable belief in consent. The court found Smith guilty of the offence of rape.

The court sentenced Smith to a term of imprisonment, and ordered that he pay compensation to the complainant. The court also made a non-publication order in relation to the complainant's identity.

Orders