R v SW [2022] NSWDC 2

R v SW [2022] NSWDC 2

The Crown did not prove beyond reasonable doubt the specific acts charged. SR's evidence on Counts 1 to 6 was affected by inability to place events in time, prior cogent denials to trusted adults, inconsistent and exaggerated complaint evidence, possible confabulation, and insufficiently reliable identification of each alleged act. Count 3 also failed because the Court was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that SR was under 10 at the relevant time. CB was assessed as attempting to be accurate, but her evidence did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused touched her vagina for Count 7 or masturbated in front of her for Count 8. The Court was not satisfied that the tendency...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial for Sexual Offences / Judge Alone Trial; Verdict and Orders
Outcome
Accused found not guilty on Counts 1 to 8.
Legal Topics
['sexual Offences' 'indecent Assault' 'act of Indecency' 'sexual Act With or Towards a Child' 'child Complainant Evidence' 'complaint Evidence' 'tendency Evidence' 'context Evidence' 'judge Alone Trial' 'proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['sexual Offences' 'indecent Assault' 'act of Indecency' 'sexual Act With or Towards a Child' 'child Complainant Evidence' 'complaint Evidence' 'tendency Evidence' 'context Evidence' 'judge Alone Trial' 'proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial for Sexual Offences / Judge Alone Trial; Verdict and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt the specific acts alleged in Counts 1 to 8.' "Whether SR's evidence was truthful and reliable in relation to Counts 1 to 6, including timing, prior denials, complaint evidence and alleged exaggeration." "Whether CB's evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt the specific acts alleged in Counts 7 and 8." 'Whether time was an essential particular of any count and whether the specific acts were sufficiently identified despite evidence of other alleged uncharged events.' 'Whether the alleged acts were indecent or sexual within the meaning of the charged provisions.' 'Whether tendency evidence established that the accused had a sexual interest in prepubescent females and a tendency to act on it.' 'Whether missing evidence, including Great Aunty KW and SMS messages, affected reasonable doubt.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown did not prove beyond reasonable doubt the specific acts charged. SR's evidence on Counts 1 to 6 was affected by inability to place events in time, prior cogent denials to trusted adults, inconsistent and exaggerated complaint evidence, possible confabulation, and insufficiently reliable identification of each alleged act. Count 3 also failed because the Court was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that SR was under 10 at the relevant time. CB was assessed as attempting to be accurate, but her evidence did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused touched her vagina for Count 7 or masturbated in front of her for Count 8. The Court was not satisfied that the tendency...

Court Disposition

Accused found not guilty on Counts 1 to 8.

Orders

  • ['In relation to Count 1 on the indictment the accused is found Not Guilty.' 'In relation to Count 2 on the indictment the accused is found Not Guilty.' 'In relation to Count 3 on the indictment the accused is found Not Guilty.' 'In relation to Count 4 on the indictment the accused is found Not Guilty.' 'In relation...