R v Webb - [2020] SADC 16

District Court of South Australia
(Criminal)
R v WEBB
[2020] SADC 16
Reasons for Decision of His Honour Judge Slattery (ex tempore)
17 February 2020
JURY
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - COMPLAINTS
1. It is a jury question whether a complaint or a failure to complain displays any degree (and if so what degree), of consistency or inconsistency of the conduct of a complainant.
2. In reaching a conclusion about the question of consistency of conduct, the jury may have regard to the whole of the evidence before it in the circumstances of the case.
3. When making submissions about consistency of conduct and the plausibility or implausibility of the account of a complainant, defence counsel are permitted to cross examine upon and to make submissions on at least the following topics:
a. That the facts surrounding the making of any complaint in the context of the whole of the circumstances of the case, including the conduct of the accused and the complainant, may be taken into account in assessing the plausibility or implausibility of the complainant’s evidence including about the failure to complain or the delay in complaining;
b. The opportunity that the complainant may have had to complain but did not complain when the opportunity presented, notwithstanding the prohibition upon the defendant submitting that delay, of itself, is probative of the credibility of the complainant; and
c. Whether the alleged conduct of the accused left open the opportunity for a complainant to complain about the alleged offending.
4. When submissions are made on the question of the plausibility or implausibility of a defendant’s account, including in the context of complaint evidence or a failure to make a complaint, the trial judge must direct the jury on the use to be made of all of the relevant evidence. This will involve directions on the alleged consistency or inconsistency of conduct and their assessment of the plausibility or implausibility submissions made by counsel.
5. It is a matter for the jury to determine the significance of that evidence in the circumstances of that case.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 s 48 ; Evidence Act 1929 s 34M, referred to.
R v H, T (2010) 108 SASR 86; R v Botten [2017] SASCFC 73; R v Van Wyk [2018] SASCFC 138; (2018-2019) 132 SASR 46; R v Dhir [2019] SASCFC 55, discussed.

R v WEBB
[2020] SADC 16

The accused is charged on Information for arraignment dated 20 July 2015 with two counts of Rape. The Information provides as follows:
INFORMATION
First Count
Statement of Offence
Rape. (Section 48 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935)
Particulars of Offence
Adam Webb between the 14^th day of January 2004 and the 16^th day of January 2004 at Wynn Vale, had sexual intercourse with Heidi Cormack by inserting his penis into her vagina without her consent, knowing that she was not consenting, or being recklessly indifferent as to whether she was not consenting.
Second…

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 Webb

Details

AGLC: R v Webb [2020] SADC 16
Case: [2020] SADC 16
Decision Date: 17 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Webb was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the defendant, Webb, was charged with assault and making a complaint against a police officer. The prosecution alleged that Webb had assaulted a police officer during an arrest, and then subsequently made a complaint against the officer, which the court was required to consider as part of the evidence. The legal issues before the court included the admissibility of the complaint made by Webb against the police officer and its relevance to the charge of assault. The court had to determine whether the complaint was relevant to the circumstances of the alleged assault and whether its admission would assist in determining the truth of the matter.

The court examined the principles governing the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials, particularly focusing on the relevance and probative value of the evidence in question. It was determined that the complaint made by Webb against the police officer was relevant to the context of the alleged assault, as it provided insight into the interaction between Webb and the officer at the time of the incident. The court considered that the complaint could potentially explain the circumstances leading up to the assault, thereby assisting in establishing the truth of the matter. The court concluded that the complaint was relevant and should be admitted as evidence, as it had a direct bearing on the events in question.

In light of the above reasoning, the court ruled in favour of admitting the complaint as evidence in the case. The court held that the complaint was relevant to the context of the alleged assault and could assist in establishing the truth of the matter. The decision to admit the complaint as evidence was based on its relevance and probative value in understanding the circumstances of the incident. The court's decision to admit the evidence was ultimately upheld, and the case proceeded with the complaint being considered alongside other evidence presented.

The final orders of the court were that the complaint made by Webb against the police officer was admissible as evidence in the case. The court acknowledged the relevance of the complaint in understanding the context of the alleged assault and its potential to assist in determining the truth of the matter. The case proceeded with the complaint being considered as part of the evidence, and the defendant's guilt or innocence was to be determined based on the totality of the evidence presented, including the admitted complaint.

Orders