High Court of Australia

DL v The Queen [2018] HCA 26

20 Jun 2018

Case Number: A38/2017


Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane, Nettle, Edelman JJ


Criminal law – Trial by judge alone – Adequacy of reasons – Where appellant convicted of "[p]ersistent sexual exploitation of a child" – Where offence comprised of two or more acts of sexual exploitation separated by not less than three days – Where complainant alleged various acts of sexual exploitation over many years – Where alleged inconsistencies and implausibilities in complainant's evidence – Where trial judge regarded complainant as reliable witness as to "core allegations" – Whether trial judge's reasons inadequate because failed to identify two or more acts constituting offence – Whether trial judge's reasons inadequate because failed to explain process of reasoning.

Words and phrases – "adequacy of reasons", "basis for decision", "conflict between evidence", "credibility", "inadequacy of reasons", "inconsistencies in evidence", "process of reasoning", "reasons", "trial by judge alone".

Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) – s 50(1).

PDF MD5: 921063394c0fd2396e09d4937810edef
RTF MD5: c1ef5b491ab188797949771cd1721403