R v Sweeney - [2025] SADC 41

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v SWEENEY
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2025] SADC 41
Reasons for the Verdict of her Honour Judge Schammer
24 April 2025
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - COMPLAINTS
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS - STATEMENTS - STATEMENTS MADE IN PRESENCE OF ACCUSED AND RELATED CONDUCT - PARTICULAR CONDUCT
The accused, Darrell Leonard Sweeney, is charged on Information dated 29 October 2024 with one count of unlawful sexual intercourse (count 1) and two counts of aggravated indecent assault (counts 2 and 3) against BA, a person under the age of 17.
The offending is alleged to have occurred during one incident at Salisbury Downs on a date between 15 May 2023 and 15 June 2023.
At that time, BA was aged 16 and the accused was aged 38. BA and the accused were known to each other, as they both frequented the home of ‘Bob’ where BA and her friends, of a similar age to her, were given and smoked, cannabis.
BA alleges that on an occasion after she had been at Bob’s home with some of her friends (including AC) and had smoked cannabis, she and those friends travelled by train to Salisbury. Shortly after alighting the train in Salisbury, they saw the accused, outside a shop, rolling cigarettes. They approached the accused and asked him for a smoke. After spending some time together as a group, the accused and BA left the group and walked together, alone, towards a service station, where they intended to steal various items.
BA alleges that as they walked towards the service station, the accused took her behind a wall and pushed her down to her knees. She alleges that he then forced her to perform fellatio on him (count 1), caused her to masturbate his penis (count 2) and kissed her on the mouth (count 3).
BA claims that thereafter they returned to the group, at which time she disclosed the offending to a friend, ZB. ZB was not called to give evidence. BA claims she told AC about the offending, later that night. AC gave evidence that BA did disclose the offending to her, but that she did so on the day after the offending and at a time after BA had been to the police station to report the offending.
AC’s mother, JC, who was in an on again/off again relationship with the accused at the time of the alleged offending, gave evidence that some time thereafter, BA showed her where the alleged offending had occurred. The location identified by BA to JC differed from the location BA identified to police. JC also gave evidence of alleged conduct and comments made by the accused relied upon by the prosecution as evidence of implied admissions and/or a consciousness of guilt.
BA’s account of the day of the alleged offending differed in material ways from AC’s account. BA acknowledged her…

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 Sweeney

Details

AGLC: R v Sweeney [2025] SADC 41
Case: [2025] SADC 41
Decision Date: 24 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Sweeney, the accused was charged with sexual offences against a complainant. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The prosecution alleged that the accused committed acts of a sexual nature against the complainant on various occasions. The accused contested these allegations, and the case turned on the admissibility and reliability of the complainant's statements and the accused's related conduct.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the admissibility of statements made by the complainant in the presence of the accused and the accused's subsequent conduct. The court was required to determine whether these statements and conduct could be considered as admissions or confessions and whether they were reliable enough to be admitted as evidence against the accused.

The court examined the circumstances under which the statements were made and the accused's conduct in response. It considered the credibility of the complainant and the consistency of her statements. The court also assessed whether the statements were spontaneous and made in a manner that suggested they were not influenced by any external factors. Ultimately, the court found that the complainant's statements were reliable and could be admitted as evidence. The accused's conduct, which included denials and attempts to discredit the complainant, was also considered in determining the weight to be given to the evidence.

The court ruled that the complainant's statements, along with the accused's conduct, provided sufficient evidence to support the prosecution's case. The accused was found guilty on all counts and sentenced accordingly. The court emphasised the importance of assessing the totality of the evidence, including the complainant's statements and the accused's conduct, to ensure a fair trial and accurate determination of guilt.

Orders