Event and Time
Event Description
- Case involving a series of sexual offence charges against the applicant involving four children, with some counts resulting in convictions and others in acquittals.
- The applicant was found guilty on 13 counts and not guilty on two counts (Counts 1 and 11). The proceedings took place in October 2019 over eight days.
Application and Claims
- Applicant's Claims:
- Ground 1: Trial counsel incompetently failed to raise the possibility of concoction among complainants. - Ground 2: The Crown's closing address denied a fair trial, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. - Ground 3: The inconsistency between the not guilty verdict on Count 11 and the guilty verdict on Count 12.
Judicial Decisions
- Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was ultimately dismissed, reinforcing the original convictions.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Applicant's Arguments:
- Alleged that the evolution of complaints indicated possible concoction among complainants, impacting the probative value of evidence. - Counsel’s failure to explore the concoction theory and lack of further guiding direction by the trial judge resulted in an unfair trial. - Claimed a logical inconsistency between the jury's verdicts on Counts 11 and 12.
- Crown's Arguments:
- Asserted that any communications between the complainants were typical family discussions and did not amount to concoction. - Emphasized that defense counsel’s strategy of not explicitly alleging concoction was a rational decision grounded in the available evidence. - Maintained that the differentiation between the verdicts on Counts 11 and 12 could be explained by the evidential differences concerning each count.