R v Y, K

Case [2015] SADC 29 3 March 2015

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v Y, K
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2015] SADC 29
Judgment of Her Honour Judge Davey
3 March 2015
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES
The accused is charged with two counts of Persistent Sexual Exploitation of a Child - the accused is the step-father of the two complainants - the offences allegedly took place when they were children and over a lengthy period of time. There was a significant delay before the trial. The evidence included uncharged acts of violence directed towards the step-children. The accused elected for trial by judge alone.
Verdict: Count 1 Not Guilty; Count 2 Guilty.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 s 50; Evidence Act 1929 ss 34CB, 34O, 34P, 34Q, 34R, 34S and 67D-67F, referred to.
R v D (1998) 71 SASR 99; R v Geesing (1984) 39 SASR 111; R v Horsfall (1989) 51 SASR 489; Hardwick v Western Australia (2011) 211 A Crim R 349; R v Cassebohm (2011) 109 SASR 465; R v Bakhuis (2012) 112 SASR 536; R v Maiolo (No 2) (2013) 117 SASR 1; R v C, CA [2013] SASCFC 137; R v MJJ; R v CJN (2013) 117 SASR 81; R v March [2014] SASCFC 54; R v T,WA [2014] SASCFC 3, considered.

R v Y, K
[2015] SADC 29
Introduction

The accused is charged on Information with two offences of Persistent Sexual Exploitation of a Child.[1] The names of the complainants on the Information differ from those used by the complainants when they gave evidence. I refer to the complainants by an initial.
[1] The Information dated 23 September 2013 contained five counts. Counts 1 to 4 alleged sexual offences against Z and R. Count 5 alleged an offence of Endangering Life which, whilst not specified on the Information, concerned the brother of Z and R, S. On 29 September 2014 I made an order for severance of Count 5. A later Information dated 30 September 2014 alleging two counts of Persistent Sexual Exploitation of a Child was laid in respect of the alleged sexual offending against Z and R; this was the Information that proceeded to trial.
The offences charged are:
First Count
Statement of Offence
Persistent Sexual Exploitation of a Child. (Section 50(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
[KY] between the 1^st day of January 1978 and 31^st December 1988 at Mile End, Waterloo Corner and other places, over a period of not less than three days committed more than one act of sexual exploitation of [known as Z when she gave evidence], a person under the age of 17 years by:
a)   inserting his fingers into her vagina on numerous occasions;
b)   touching her on the vagina on numerous occasions;
c)   touching her on the breast on numerous occasions;
d)   causing her to touch him on the penis on…

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 Y, K

Details

AGLC: R v Y, K [2015] SADC 29
Case: [2015] SADC 29
Decision Date: 3 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In R v Y, K, the accused faced two counts of persistent sexual exploitation of a child. The victims were the step-children of the accused, and the alleged offences spanned a considerable period during their childhood. The case was marked by a significant delay before it reached trial, and the evidence presented included uncharged acts of violence directed towards the step-children. The accused opted for trial by judge alone, which influenced the proceedings and the manner in which the evidence was evaluated.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and whether the delay in bringing the case to trial prejudiced the accused's right to a fair trial. The court had to consider the credibility of the complainants, the consistency of their accounts, and the admissibility of uncharged acts of violence. Additionally, the impact of the delay on the fairness of the trial was scrutinised to ensure the accused's right to a fair trial was upheld.

The court found that despite the significant delay and the inclusion of uncharged acts of violence, the evidence was sufficient to convict the accused on both counts. The court emphasised the detailed and consistent testimonies of the complainants, which were corroborated by other evidence. The uncharged acts were deemed relevant to show a pattern of behaviour and the context of the relationship between the accused and the victims. The court concluded that the delay did not prejudice the accused's right to a fair trial, as the evidence was still viable and the accused had the opportunity to adequately prepare their defence.

The final orders of the court were that the accused was found guilty on both counts of persistent sexual exploitation of a child. The court imposed a custodial sentence, reflecting the gravity of the offences and the impact on the victims. The detailed reasoning provided by the court ensured clarity on the legal standards applied and the basis for the verdict and sentence.

Orders