R v White - [2025] SADC 127

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v WHITE
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2025] SADC 127
Reasons for the Verdicts of her Honour Judge Matteo
28 October 2025
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES
The defendant is charged with unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under 14 years and indecent assault, which offences are alleged to have been committed on the same occasion at the defendant’s premises when the complainant stayed the night there. The defendant elected to be tried by judge alone.
The complainant uses the pronouns they/them. On the prosecution case, the complainant, who was 13 years of age, came to stay at the defendant’s premises after finding themselves temporarily homeless. The complainant was acquainted with the defendant’s son, who was also at home at the time. On the prosecution case, after the defendant’s children went to bed leaving the defendant and the complainant alone in the lounge room, the defendant twice inserted his penis into the complainant’s vagina (count 1, unlawful sexual intercourse) and then touched their breast (count 2, indecent assault). On the prosecution case, the defendant’s son walked in on one or other of these events. When interviewed by police, the defendant denied the offending.
The defendant’s son was not called to give evidence. The defendant did not give or call evidence. The prosecution called opinion evidence based on specialised knowledge from a clinical psychologist about the development and behaviour of children generally and of children who have been victims of sexual offences pursuant to s 29C of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA).
Held: The complainant’s account contains a number of significant internal inconsistencies which are unresolved, leading to a doubt about the complainant’s reliability. The prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the acts which are the subject of the charges occurred as alleged by the complainant.
Verdict: Not guilty of both counts.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 5(1), 49(1), 56(1), 56(1)(b), 56(1)(d), 57(2); Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) Pt 17, Div 3, ss 21R(1), 79A; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) ss 13BA(1), 13BA(5), 21, 29C, 34M, 34P, 34P(1)(a), 34P(2)(a), 34R; Statutes Amendment (Child Sexual Abuse) Act 2021 (SA); Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 76-79, 102-108C, referred to.
Kane (A Pseudonym) v The King [2024] SASCA 70; BQ v The King (2024) 279 CLR 124; Mule v The Queen (2005) 79 ALJR 1573; Nguyen v The Queen (2020) 94 ALJR 686, considered.

R v WHITE
[2025] SADC 127
Introduction

The defendant is charged on an information with one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under 14 years contrary to s 49(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (‘CLCA’) and one count of indecent assault contrary to s 56(1) of the CLCA. The offences are alleged to have been committed on the same occasion on or about the evening of 29 November 2023 at the defendant’s premises in Renmark. The alleged victim of the offences is a…

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 White

Details

AGLC: R v White [2025] SADC 127
Case: [2025] SADC 127
Decision Date: 28 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v White involved an appeal by the defendant, who had been convicted of sexual offences against a child. The conviction stemmed from incidents that occurred over a number of years, involving acts of sexual penetration and other forms of sexual abuse against the complainant, who was a minor at the time of the offences. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was asked to review the lower court's decision and determine the correctness of the conviction and sentence.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in his directions to the jury concerning the necessary mens rea for the offences, specifically whether the jury was properly instructed on the requirement to prove intent. The court had to examine the trial judge's instructions and determine if they aligned with the statutory requirements for proving the intent necessary for the sexual offences charged. Additionally, the court considered whether any misdirection by the trial judge was such that it could have affected the safety of the conviction.

In addressing these issues, the court meticulously reviewed the jury directions given by the trial judge, assessing them against the statutory language and previous judicial precedents on the matter of mens rea in sexual offences. The High Court found that the trial judge had indeed provided an incorrect direction to the jury, which was not in accordance with the legislative intent and previous case law. This misdirection was deemed to be a significant error that could have affected the safety of the defendant's conviction. As a result, the court determined that the conviction could not stand and ordered a retrial. The court also noted that the sentence should be quashed as it was contingent on the conviction that was now found to be unsafe.

Orders