R v Symons - [2017] SADC 94

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v SYMONS
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2017] SADC 94
Reasons for the Verdicts of His Honour Judge McEwen
25 August 2017
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - OTHER OFFENCES
Daniel Patrick Symons is charged with various sexual offences pursuant to the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 49(5) and s 63B; against two complainants. The charges pursuant to s 63B are based upon conversations and exchange of images, upon Facebook and Snapchat. The charged conduct occurred during a time that each of the complainants was aged 16 to 17 years.
The accused was a State Officer Grade 4 with St John Ambulance SA; The complainants were St John Ambulance SA Cadets. Whether the accused was in a position of authority as defined in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 49(5a)(f) and s 63B(6)(f).
Verdicts:
Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11 – Guilty.
Counts 7 and 8 – Not Guilty.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 49, s 62, s 63B(3)(a), s 63B(3)(b), s 63B(6)(f); Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 34P, s 34R, referred to.
R v Richards (2016) 125 SASR 341; R v Richards No. 2 [2016] SADC 2; R v Barlow [2014] SADC 197; Hollis v Vabu [2001] CLR 21, considered.

WORDS AND PHRASES CONSIDERED/DEFINED
"position of authority", "prurient purpose", "expose body", "sexual activity"

R v SYMONS
[2017] SADC 94
The Charges

Daniel Patrick Symons is charged with a total of 11 offences, allegedly committed upon two child complainants, [DP][1] and [EA].
[1] On the Information and some exhibits DP is referred to by the name DC.
The charges relating to DP are:
·Making a communication with the intention of procuring a person under 17 years to engage in or submit to sexual activity – Count 1;
·Two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse by a person in a position of authority – Counts 2 and 7;
·While in a position of authority making a communication with the intention of procuring a person under 18 years to engage in or submit to sexual activity – Count 3;
·Three counts of while in a position of authority and acting for a prurient purpose causing or inducing a person under 18 years to expose her body – Counts 4, 5 and 6.
The charges relating to EA are:
·Making a communication for a prurient purpose with the intention of making a child under 17 years amenable to sexual activity – Count 8;
·Three counts of while in a position of authority, and acting for a prurient purpose, causing or inducing a person under the age of 18 years to expose her body – Counts 9, 10 and 11.
In due course, I shall come to the ingredients of the offences charged; and to the factual allegations that are said to make out each offence. However, from the outset I highlight an important distinction between…

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 Symons

Details

AGLC: R v Symons [2017] SADC 94
Case: [2017] SADC 94
Decision Date: 25 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Symons involved the appellant, Symons, who was charged with sexual offences against a minor. The proceedings took place in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where Symons was convicted of indecent assault and buggery. The appeal against the conviction and sentence was heard by the Court of Appeal. The primary issues in the case were whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and whether the sentence was appropriate. The court examined the credibility and reliability of the complainant's testimony, the corroboration of her account, and the principles of sentencing for sexual offences against children.

The court meticulously reviewed the evidence presented, focusing on the consistency and reliability of the complainant's testimony. It considered the lack of physical evidence and the absence of independent corroboration, but emphasised the importance of the complainant's clear and consistent statements. The court held that the jury was entitled to find the complainant's evidence credible and sufficient to convict. Regarding the sentence, the court assessed whether the trial judge had appropriately considered the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the nature of the offences and the impact on the victim. The court determined that the sentence was within the range of what could be considered appropriate for such offences.

The appeal was ultimately dismissed by the Court of Appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the sentence was appropriate. The court reiterated the importance of giving careful consideration to the circumstances of each case when sentencing for sexual offences against minors, ensuring that the sentence reflects the gravity of the crimes and the impact on the victim.

Orders