R v Tedesco

Case [2003] SASC 79

R v TEDESCO
[2003] SASC 79

Court of Criminal Appeal:  Doyle CJ, Duggan and Gray JJ

  1. DOYLE CJ:           The appellant was tried by a Judge and jury in the District Court on an Information containing four counts. The first two counts alleged rape on 6 September 2001. The third count was a charge of criminal trespass in a place of residence on 27 September 2001. The fourth count was a charge of assault on the same day and at the same place. The victim in each case was a woman to whom I will refer as “Ms E”. The jury found the appellant guilty on both charges of rape, not guilty on the charge of criminal trespass, and guilty on the charge of assault.

  2. Two matters were argued on appeal. First, that the Judge erred in allowing the joinder of counts 3 and 4 with counts 1 and 2. Second, that the Judge erred in failing to direct the jury about the permissible use of evidence relating to counts 3 and 4 when considering counts 1 and 2. This ground was added by leave at the hearing of the appeal. Counsel for the appellant abandoned a further ground that complained that the Judge erred in admitting evidence of certain uncharged acts.

    Facts

  3. For the purposes of the appeal it suffices to summarise the central features of the case at trial.

  4. The background to the charges was a rather stormy relationship between the appellant and Ms E. The relationship began in the middle of 2000, and ended in late August 2001. The appellant and Ms E lived together for two periods in that time. They finally separated in late August 2001. Ms E said that the difficulty in the relationship was that the appellant became very jealous and possessive, trying to control her life. Ms E also gave evidence of some incidents, which preceded the charges, involving verbal abuse of her by the appellant, and some physical violence towards her.

  5. After they separated in late August 2001, there was still some contact between them. Ms E said that the appellant pestered her at her place of employment. They had arranged to meet on 6 September 2001 at the house in which they last lived together. Ms E had moved out of the house just a few days before, motivated by fear of the appellant. The plan was for them to clean the house, and then hand over possession to the landlord. On the morning of 6 September, Ms E was cleaning out the house when the appellant arrived. He had a new car with him. He told Ms E that if she would resume the relationship the car was hers. She declined both offers. Ms E said that they went into the house and she resumed the cleaning. The appellant then took her by the arms, and asked her to reconsider, but she refused. Ms E said that the appellant was initially upset, then got angry. He held her tightly. She…

Continue reading R v Tedesco

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Tedesco [2003] SASC 79
Case
[2003] SASC 79
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tedesco was heard in the court, where the appellant contested the decision of the lower court in two primary respects. The appellant argued that the Judge erred in allowing the joinder of counts 3 and 4 with counts 1 and 2. Additionally, the appellant claimed that the Judge failed to direct the jury regarding the permissible use of evidence relating to counts 3 and 4 when considering counts 1 and 2. A third ground of appeal, concerning the admission of evidence of certain uncharged acts, was abandoned by the appellant's counsel. The case revolved around a tumultuous relationship between the appellant and Ms E, which began in mid-2000 and ended in late August 2001, with the appellant and Ms E living together intermittently during this period. The trial evidence revealed incidents of verbal and physical abuse by the appellant towards Ms E prior to the charges, and ongoing harassment after their separation. The central events leading to the charges occurred on 6 September 2001, when the appellant visited Ms E at her former residence, demanding she resume their relationship. When she refused, he allegedly forcibly pulled down her jeans and engaged in acts of sexual penetration, which formed the basis of the rape charges. A further incident on 27 September 2001, where the appellant entered Ms E's home uninvited and made threats, led to charges of criminal trespass and assault.

The court examined the appellant's arguments regarding the joinder of counts and the jury direction on evidence usage. The court found that the Judge did not err in joining the counts, as they were part of a continuous course of conduct and shared common factual elements. Regarding the jury direction, the court held that the Judge sufficiently instructed the jury on the appropriate use of evidence. The court concluded that no miscarriage of justice had occurred and that the appeal should be dismissed. The reasoning was that the Judge's decisions were within the proper scope of judicial discretion, and the evidence was properly managed and presented to the jury. The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal, upholding the lower court's decisions and convictions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Two matters were argued on appeal. First, that the Judge erred in allowing the joinder of counts 3 and 4 with counts 1 and 2. Second, that the Judge erred in failing to direct the jury about the permissible use of evidence relating to counts 3 and 4 when considering counts 1 and 2. This ground was added by leave at the hearing of the appeal. Counsel for the appellant abandoned a further ground that complained that the Judge erred in admitting evidence of certain uncharged acts.Facts For the purposes of the appeal it suffices to summarise the central features of the case at trial. The background to the charges was a rather stormy relationship between the appellant and Ms E. The relationship began in the middle of 2000, and ended in late August 2001. The appellant and Ms E lived together for two periods in that time. They finally separated in late August 2001. Ms E said that the difficulty in the relationship was that the appellant became very jealous and possessive, trying to control her life. Ms E also gave evidence of some incidents, which preceded the charges, involving verbal abuse of her by the appellant, and some physical violence towards her. After they separated in late August 2001, there was still some contact between them. Ms E said that the appellant pestered her at her place of employment. They had arranged to meet on 6 September 2001 at the house in which they last lived together. Ms E had moved out of the house just a few days before, motivated by fear of the appellant. The plan was for them to clean the house, and then hand over possession to the landlord. On the morning of 6 September, Ms E was cleaning out the house when the appellant arrived. He had a new car with him. He told Ms E that if she would resume the relationship the car was hers. She declined both offers. Ms E said that they went into the house and she resumed the cleaning. The appellant then took her by the arms, and asked her to reconsider, but she refused. Ms E said that the appellant was initially upset, then got angry. He held her tightly. She continued to refuse to resume the relationship. The appellant forced Ms E into the bedroom. It is not necessary to go into the details of what followed. In brief, Ms E said that the appellant forcibly pulled down her jeans, and inserted a finger into her vagina and anus. Each of these acts was the subject of a charge of rape. The appellant then allowed Ms E to leave the house. She walked to a nearby shopping centre where she telephoned a friend. When the friend came to get her, she made a complaint to the friend. I can omit the details of what ensued from that incident. Ms E did not see the appellant again for some time. She moved to a new address. On 27 September 2001 at about 3 pm, Ms E opened the front door of the house, to find to her surprise that the appellant was there. There was a screen door that was locked. The appellant was angry. He accused Ms E of having someone with her. She denied this. She refused to let him in. Then her young son arrived home from school. She called out to him to run next door, which he did. The appellant began to run after her son, so Ms E opened the front door and ran out of the house. The appellant then came back, and before Ms E could lock the screen door he opened it and entered the house. I assume that this act was the subject of the count of criminal trespass. Once in the house the appellant behaved in an angry and threatening manner. He said to Ms E that if he found out she was living with another man, he would throw a petrol bomb through her window. That made her feel very scared. That threat was the basis of the charge of assault.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

For all those reasons I am satisfied that there has been no miscarriage of justice here.Conclusion In my opinion the appeal should be dismissed. DUGGAN J: In my view this appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by the Chief Justice. GRAY J: I agree that this appeal should be dismissed for the reasons published by Doyle CJ.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.