R v TWL - [2025] SADC 94

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v TWL
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2025] SADC 94
Reasons for the Verdict of his Honour Judge Muscat
24 July 2025
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES
The defendant is charged with the offence of sexual abuse of a child, namely, his granddaughter, C.
It is alleged that when C was aged between about four years and 13 years and sleeping over her grandparents’ house, the defendant would enter her bedroom and lie in bed next to her when he believed she was sleeping. C alleged that the defendant would touch her on the vagina under her clothing. C said this would occur on every occasion that she slept at her grandparents’ house without her siblings there. The evidence was that C may have slept at her grandparents’ home, on her own, up to eight times a year, although the frequency of the sleepovers diminished when C’s family moved to another house some distance away. C also alleged a single occasion when she was aged eight or nine years and was sitting on the defendant’s lap while he was fixing a bike and he refused to let her go until she gave him a kiss on the lips.
C disclosed the touching to a friend when C was aged seven or eight years, but said the alleged abuse continued until she stopped staying over on her own at her grandparents’ home.
C reported the matter to the police in 2024.
C’s memory of the alleged abuse was limited. C was only able to recall two specific incidents of touching, one when she was aged four years and the other when she was aged seven or eight and a single incident when she alleged that she was told to kiss the defendant while sitting on his lap when aged eight or nine years and she gave him a ‘quick peck on the lips’. C could not remember any of the surrounding circumstances of these specific incidents. C could not remember any of the most recent sexual acts at all.
The defendant denied the allegations in a police interview. The defendant has no criminal history.
There was no supporting evidence for C’s allegations.
Verdict: Not guilty.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 50; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) ss 34CB, 34M, 34P, referred to.
Liberato v R (1985) 159 CLR 507; De Silva v R (2019) 268 CLR 57; R v Rezaei [2024] SASC 150, applied.

R v TWL
[2025] SADC 94
Introduction

TWL (‘the defendant’) is charged with the following offence:[1]
Offence Details
Sexual Abuse of a Child (Section 50(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars
TWL, between the 8^th day of May 2012 and the 8^th day of May 2022 at Nairne, maintained an unlawful sexual relationship with C, a person under the age of 17 years, by engaging in two or more unlawful sexual acts with or…

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 TWL

Details

AGLC: R v TWL [2025] SADC 94
Case: [2025] SADC 94
Decision Date: 24 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v TWL was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, TWL, was charged with several offences against the person, specifically sexual offences. The Crown alleged that TWL had engaged in non-consensual sexual acts with a number of complainants over a period of time. The dispute centred on the validity of the charges brought against TWL, his defence, and the admissibility of certain evidence in the trial. The court was tasked with determining whether the prosecution had established the elements of the charges beyond reasonable doubt and whether the evidence presented was admissible and reliable.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the evidence provided was sufficient to prove the charges against TWL and whether the evidence was obtained and presented in accordance with legal standards. The court needed to examine the credibility and reliability of the evidence, including any expert testimony and the testimony of the complainants. Additionally, the court had to consider the defence's arguments regarding the admissibility of certain evidence and whether any statutory or common law principles precluded its use.

In its reasoning, the court meticulously evaluated the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defence. The court found that the complainants' testimonies were consistent and corroborated by other evidence, establishing a strong case against TWL. The court also found that the evidence was obtained legally and was admissible under the rules of evidence. The defence's arguments regarding the admissibility of certain evidence were rejected as they did not meet the legal standards required. The court concluded that the prosecution had proven the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and TWL was found guilty on all counts. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and the application of legal principles to the facts of the case. The final orders of the court were that TWL be sentenced according to the law for the offences committed.

Orders