Event and Time
Event Description
- The applicant was convicted of three charges of indecent acts with a child under 16, and sentenced to a total effective sentence of 3 years and 9 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years.
- Acquitted on three further charges, including charge 4 for sexual penetration and one on charge 6 by judicial direction.
- The allegations spanned four incidents over three days between 2009 and 2010 involving the complainant, aged between 10 and 12, and the applicant, who was aged between 38 and 40 at that time.
Application and Claims
- Grounds of Appeal:
- Ground 1(a): Guilty verdict for charge 1 inconsistent with acquittal on charge 2. - Ground 1(b): Guilty verdicts for charges 7 and 8 inconsistent with acquittal on charge 2. - Ground 2: Guilty verdicts on charges 1, 7, and 8 are unreasonable and unsupported by evidence.
Judicial Decisions
- The respondent conceded Ground 1(a) and the Appeal Court agreed that this concession was valid and warranted the substitution of a not guilty verdict for charge 1.
- The appeal concerning the remaining charges (7 and 8) was not upheld; the jury's verdict considered credible and reliable despite the inconsistencies noted in other charges.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Applicant's Arguments:
- Inconsistency: The inconsistency between guilty and not guilty verdicts raises doubts about the complainant's credibility. - Unreasonableness: The verdicts on charges 1, 7, and 8, given the overall evidence, cannot logically support a conviction. - Credibility of Complainant: The applicant argued that the complainant’s testimony was not consistent, raising questions about her reliability.