R v TCL - [2025] SADC 121

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v TCL
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2025] SADC 121
Reasons for the Verdict of her Honour Judge Kudelka
17 October 2025
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - MAINTAINING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH CHILD AND PERSISTENT SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILD
The accused is charged with the offence of sexual abuse of a child contrary to s 50(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935. He met the complainant through his friendship with the complainant's mother's partner. It is alleged the unlawful sexual acts occurred when the complainant was aged between six and 12 years.
Verdict: Guilty.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 50(1); Evidence Act (SA) s 13BA, Part 3 Div 3, s 29, s 34P, s 34M; Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) Part 17 Division 3, referred to.
Anderson (a pseudonym) v The King [2024] SASCA 36; R v Maiolo (No 2) (2013) 117 SASR 1; R v Usher (2014) 119 SASR 22; R v Maiolo (No 3) [2014] SASCFC 89; R v Place (2015) 124 SASR 467; BQ v The King (2024) 279 CLR 124; AWK v Tasmania [2024] TASCCA 5; R v Schulz (2016) 126 SASR 476; R v Ahmadi, R v Hosseini, R v A,N; R v M,A (2018) 131 SASR 64, considered.

R v TCL
[2025] SADC 121

The accused is charged with the offence of sexual abuse of a child contrary to s 50(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935.
The particulars of the offence are that between 21 July 2014 and 23 July 2021, the accused maintained an unlawful sexual relationship with the complainant, a person under the age of 17 years, by engaging in two or more unlawful sexual acts with or towards her, namely:
(a)     performing an act of cunnilingus upon her on more than one occasion;
(b)    attempting to insert his penis into her vagina on one occasion;
(c)     attempting to insert his penis into her anus on one occasion;
(d)    causing her to touch his penis on more than one occasion;
(e)     rubbing his penis down her torso on one occasion;
(f)     rubbing his penis on her genitals on more than one occasion;
(g)     causing her to perform an act of fellatio upon him on one occasion;
(h)    touching her genital area on one occasion; and
(i)     touching her bottom on one occasion.
Before the alleged offending, the complainant’s mother commenced a relationship with Mr AB. The accused was Mr AB’s friend and former work colleague.
The accused elected for trial by judge alone.
Elements of the offence of sexual abuse of a child
An adult who maintains an unlawful sexual relationship with a child is guilty of an offence. The offence has four elements:
1.The accused knowingly maintained a relationship with the complainant in the relevant period.
2.The accused engaged in two or more unlawful sexual acts with the complainant in the…

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 TCL

Details

AGLC: R v TCL [2025] SADC 121
Case: [2025] SADC 121
Decision Date: 17 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by the respondent, a man convicted of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child under 16 and of persistent sexual abuse of a child under 16, was heard by the High Court. The respondent's appeal against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the respondent's conviction was safe and that his sentence was not manifestly excessive. The respondent appealed to the High Court, arguing that his conviction was unsafe and that his sentence was manifestly excessive.

The High Court considered whether the evidence was sufficient to support the respondent's conviction and whether his sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the respondent's conviction. The Court also held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The Court held that the sentence was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for the offences committed, and that the sentence was not so excessive as to shock the conscience of the Court.

The High Court dismissed the respondent's appeal against his conviction and sentence. The Court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the respondent's conviction and that his sentence was not manifestly excessive. The Court held that the sentence was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for the offences committed, and that the sentence was not so excessive as to shock the conscience of the Court. The Court held that the appeal should be dismissed.

Orders