The Supreme Court dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, holding that the Magistrate's reasons, read as a whole, adequately disclosed the basis for findings of guilt including the resolution of factual disputes and the defence case, and that a reference to the 'transcript' of a record of interview did not support an inference that the Magistrate failed to view the video recording. On sentence, the Court held that where a single penalty is imposed under s 26 of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA), principles of concurrency and totality may have limited or no role to play, and the Magistrate was not obliged to separately address them; the 12-month sentence with 6-month non-parole period for two counts of indecent assault was within the permissible range, particularly given the 2019 amendments precluding suspended sentences for s 56 CLCA offences.
The full text is available to signed-in members.