R v SLD (No 3) [2024] NSWDC 480

R v SLD (No 3) [2024] NSWDC 480

On count 2, the court found beyond reasonable doubt that the accused, during a conversation with a mother in the immediate presence of her toddler, asked questions and commented on the child in such a manner that constituted 'associating' with a child under the Extended Supervision Order. The conduct met both the qualitative and quantitative elements necessary to establish a connection amounting to association under the supervision order, and was done intentionally. On counts 1 and 3, the court was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused associated with a child, as the interactions did not amount to a substantive connection with the children as required by the order.

Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Accused: SLD
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Judge Alone Criminal Trial / Verdict and Orders
Outcome
Guilty (Count 2); Not guilty (Counts 1 and 3)
Legal Topics
Extended Supervision Orders, Contravention of Supervision Order, Non Association With Children, Meaning of 'associate', Actus Reus and Mens Rea Requirements
Criminal Law Extended Supervision Orders Contravention of Supervision Order Non Association With Children Meaning of 'associate' Actus Reus and Mens Rea Requirements

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

SLD

Accused

Procedural Posture

Judge Alone Criminal Trial / Verdict and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused associated with a child in contravention of an Extended Supervision Order
  2. 2 The correct interpretation of 'associate' in the context of a non-association order
  3. 3 Whether the accused had the necessary intent for the offence

Ratio Decidendi

On count 2, the court found beyond reasonable doubt that the accused, during a conversation with a mother in the immediate presence of her toddler, asked questions and commented on the child in such a manner that constituted 'associating' with a child under the Extended Supervision Order. The conduct met both the qualitative and quantitative elements necessary to establish a connection amounting to association under the supervision order, and was done intentionally. On counts 1 and 3, the court was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused associated with a child, as the interactions did not amount to a substantive connection with the children as required by the order.

Court Disposition

Guilty (Count 2); Not guilty (Counts 1 and 3)

Orders

  • Count 1 - Not guilty.
  • Count 2 - Guilty.