The King v TC - [2024] NTSC 43

CITATION:The King v TC [2024] NTSC 43
PARTIES:THE KING

v
TC

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:22134946
DELIVERED:  23 May 2024
REPUBLISHED:  4 October 2024
HEARING DATES:  15 May 2024
JUDGMENT OF:  Blokland J
CATCHWORDS:
Evidence – sexual intercourse without consent – whether evidence may be
admitted as tendency evidence – evidence admitted for context, relationship
and tendency purposes.

Statutes:

Criminal Code, s 192(3)
Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act (NT), s 97(1)(b) & s 101.
Director of Public Prosecutions v Benjamin Roder (A Pseudonym) [2024]
HCA 15; JS v The Queen [2022] NSWCCA 145, Hughes v The Queen [2017]
HCA 20 referred to.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Crown:J. Moore
Accused:T. Kassimatis KC/M. Rabsch
Solicitors:
Crown:Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Accused:North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency
Judgment category classification:    C
Judgment ID Number:  BLO2405
Number of pages:  16

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ALICE SPRINGS
The King v TC [2024] NTSC 43

No.22134946
BETWEEN:

THE KING

Appellant

AND:

TC

Respondent

CORAM: BLOKLAND J
RULING ON TENDENCY EVIDENCE
(Delivered 23 May 2024)
Background

TC is to be tried on four counts of having sexual intercourse with SM without her consent, knowing about or being reckless as to her lack of consent, contrary to s 192(3) of the Criminal Code.
The complainant is the accused’s former partner. Count 1 is alleged to have taken place between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2020; count 2 between 1 January 2020 and 31 January 2021; count 3 between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2020 and count 4 between 1 January 2020 and 6 January 2021. All of the offending is alleged to have taken place in Tennant Creek at SM’s home.
In brief terms, the background on the Crown case is that the accused and the complainant met at Tennant Creek High School in their mid to late teens. They were in an intimate relationship which lasted for about one year. They first had consensual sexual intercourse when the complainant was 16 and the accused was 17.[1]
On the Crown case the relationship broke down in 2018. There is likely to be some dispute about when that occurred. The defence case is that the relationship started in 2018, when SM was in year 10 and the accused in year 12. It continued for around one year, breaking down in 2019.[2] For present purposes it is not necessary to resolve that point.
The Crown case, based largely on the complainant’s statement was that the accused was jealous, aggressive, angry and abusive throughout the relationship. It is alleged that the offending took place in the context of a problematic relationship and its aftermath, throughout which the accused demonstrated an aggressive and controlling disposition towards the complainant.
Direct evidence of the offending
With respect to count one, although there is far more background and context which will be summarised later, it is alleged the accused…

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 The King v TC

Details

AGLC: The King v TC [2024] NTSC 43
Case: [2024] NTSC 43
Decision Date: 23 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The King v TC was a criminal case heard in an Australian court. The accused faced two counts of sexual intercourse without consent. The court was required to determine the admissibility of certain evidence in the case. The Crown's case relied heavily on the complainant's statement, alleging that the accused exhibited jealousy, aggression, anger, and abusive behaviour throughout their relationship. The incidents in question were alleged to have occurred within the context of this problematic relationship and its aftermath, during which the accused demonstrated an aggressive and controlling disposition towards the complainant.

The legal issues before the court included the admissibility of evidence of the accused's prior conduct and the context of the relationship between the accused and the complainant. The Crown sought to introduce evidence of the accused's controlling and abusive behaviour in the relationship as tendency evidence, to support the complainant's allegations. The court had to consider the relevance and probative value of this evidence, as well as the potential prejudicial effect it might have on the accused. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the evidence of the context of the relationship was relevant and could be admitted for purposes other than to prove tendency, such as to provide a fuller understanding of the circumstances surrounding the alleged offences.

The court admitted the evidence of the accused's prior conduct and the context of the relationship, finding it relevant and probative of the complainant's allegations. The court held that the evidence of the accused's aggressive and controlling disposition was relevant to the complainant's credibility and the likelihood that she would have consented to sexual activity. The court also found that the evidence of the context of the relationship was relevant to understanding the complainant's state of mind and the circumstances in which the alleged offences occurred. The court concluded that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have on the accused. The court's decision allowed the jury to consider the full context of the relationship and the accused's behaviour in determining the credibility of the complainant's evidence.

The court did not make any final orders in this summary, as the case was still before the jury. However, the admission of the contested evidence was a significant development in the case, as it allowed the jury to consider the full context of the relationship and the accused's behaviour in determining the credibility of the complainant's evidence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The Crown case, based largely on the complainant’s statement was that the accused was jealous, aggressive, angry and abusive throughout the relationship. It is alleged that the offending took place in the context of a problematic relationship and its aftermath, throughout which the accused demonstrated an aggressive and controlling disposition towards the complainant.Direct evidence of the offending With respect to count one, although there is far more background and context which will be summarised later, it is alleged the accused came to SM’s house where she lived with her family. SM was downstairs alone, the remainder of the family were upstairs sleeping. The accused knocked on the front door, then the window. The knocking was to such an extent the house shook. He started calling SM’s name. She told him to leave, he threatened to hit her; he was slurring his words. She let him in because she was scared and because of the noise he was making. She told him she did not want to talk to him or to see him anymore. She told him she did not want to have sex with him. He became angry. He punched her and dragged her to her bedroom where she had refused to go. During further physical altercations she told him to get off of her. She pushed and hit him to try to get him off of her. He told her to lay down and go to sleep. He took off his clothes and started cuddling her. She told him to stop but he did not. He took her clothes off and positioned himself on top of her. She told him she did not want to have sex with him. He put a condom on and had penile/vaginal sex with her which lasted between 10 and 25 minutes and finished when he ejaculated. They both put their clothes back on and went to sleep. SM did not tell anyone about the incident until she spoke to police. [3] In terms of count 2, in brief, SM was at a club with friends. They were drinking alcohol. The accused was also present at the venue. He was also drinking alcohol. SM did not want to interact with him. SM went home after midnight and went to her bed. Shortly after, the accused came to her house and knocked on the window. He did the same thing that he did on other occasions; he told her he was going to hit her and smash cars if she did not let him in. Out of fear, and with a view to preventing her relatives (who were upstairs sleeping) from waking up, SM opened the door. The accused entered the house. SM told the accused she did not want any sexual activity and that she was drunk. She went into her room, and the accused followed her. SM left the room (leaving the accused) and got onto the lounge in the living area. She fell asleep. The accused came out and woke her up. He told her to go into the room. She said she did not want to. He grabbed her shirt and pulled her into the room. SM was laying down on the bed. The accused lay behind her. He started hugging her and touching her on her breasts and bottom. She told him that she did not want to have sex with him. He continued touching her. She told him to stop again, and she turned around and pushed him away. The accused took his clothes off. He told SM to take her clothes off and said he would hit her if she did not comply. She took her clothes off out of fear.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.