R v SPARGO - [2025] SADC 7

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v SPARGO
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2025] SADC 7
Reasons for the Verdicts of his Honour Auxiliary Judge Barrett
7 February 2025
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES
The accused is charged with two counts of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse against a 15 year old girl and two counts of Aggravated Indecent Assault against an 11 year old girl. The two girls were unknown to each other. The offences are alleged to have been committed in the latter half of 2012.
The accused exercised his right to silence.
Held: The accused is guilty of all four offences.
Evidence Act 1929 (SA) ss 34M, 34P and 34R, referred to.
MDM v The Queen [2020] SASCFC 80; R v C, CA [2013] SASCFC 137; Kendall v The King [2024] SASCA 54, considered.

R v SPARGO
[2025] SADC 7

The accused is charged with two counts of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in respect of a then 15 year old girl KB, and two counts of Aggravated Indecent Assault in respect of a then 11 year old girl TS. The alleged offences involving KB are said to have occurred in Port Augusta between 1 July and 31 December 2012. Those involving TS are said to have occurred in Elizabeth North between 19 December 2012 and 1 January 2013. The accused was aged 24 at the time. He is now 36. KB is now 27 and TS is 23.
It appears that while both complainants knew the accused through extended family connections, there is no evidence they knew each other. The accused is KB’s step uncle. KB’s father is the accused’s half-brother. KB called him uncle.
TS is more distantly connected with the accused. The accused’s mother is TS’s grandmother’s sister-in-law. TS called him cousin.
Course of the trial
There was a pre-trial application for counts 1 and 2 involving KB to be severed from counts 3 and 4 involving TS. I heard argument on the application before the witnesses were called and ruled that the charges should not be severed.[1] I will set out my reasons for so ruling after I have summarised the evidence at trial.
[1] Submissions T10-16; Ruling T16.
The prosecution called each complainant, and in respect of each, two witnesses who gave evidence of complaint. In relation to counts 1 and 2 the prosecution called KB and two people the complainant described as aunts, KS and JA.
In relation to counts 3 and 4 the prosecution called TS and her twin brothers NS and AS.
There were agreed facts.
The accused exercised his right to silence. He did not give or call evidence. I draw no inference adverse to him because he exercised that right.
Evidence of KB – Counts 1 and 2
KB said that as a child she had a troubled relationship with her mother. When she was 13 or 14 she left home and went to live in Port Augusta with…

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 SPARGO

Details

AGLC: R v SPARGO [2025] SADC 7
Case: [2025] SADC 7
Decision Date: 7 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Spargo involved the defendant, Spargo, who was charged with a number of sexual offences. The charges arose from incidents involving three different complainants over a period of time. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. Spargo contested the charges, leading to a trial on the merits of the allegations. The court was tasked with determining whether the prosecution had successfully proven each charge beyond reasonable doubt.

The legal issues in this case centred on the credibility and reliability of the complainants' evidence, the corroboration of their testimonies, and the admissibility of certain evidence. The court had to consider the nature of the allegations and the circumstances in which they were made, as well as the principles of evidence law that apply to sexual offence cases. The defence argued that the complainants' testimonies were inconsistent and unreliable, and that there was insufficient corroboration to support their claims.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the prosecution had met the burden of proof for each charge. The judge noted that the complainants' evidence, while not perfect, was sufficiently reliable and consistent to be accepted as true. The court found that the complainants had provided credible accounts of the incidents, and that there was sufficient corroboration to support their testimonies. The judge also found that the admissibility of certain evidence was proper, and that it did not unfairly prejudice the defendant. Consequently, Spargo was found guilty on all charges.

The final orders of the court included sentencing Spargo to a term of imprisonment for each of the offences, with the sentences to be served concurrently. The court also made orders for the defendant to be placed on the sex offender register and to comply with other conditions as required by law. The case highlights the importance of carefully evaluating the evidence in sexual offence cases and applying the relevant legal principles to ensure a fair and just outcome.

Orders