Event and Time
Event Description
- The case primarily revolves around an appeal against the conviction of an individual (the applicant) for multiple counts of child sexual assault against two nieces, BB and AA.
- The trial was conducted in two segments: the first trial commenced in 2016 but was aborted due to late disclosures by BB, who was initially a witness in the case. The second trial took place in 2018, resulting in convictions on several counts.
Application and Claims
- Applicant's Claims: The applicant claimed the jury's verdicts on several counts were unreasonable and that there was a miscarriage of justice due to the reliance on expert evidence and the way jury directions were formulated during the trial.
- Crown's Claims: The Crown sought to establish the applicant's sexual tendency toward his nieces, supported by testimony, including BB's late disclosure corroborating AA's claims.
Judicial Decisions
1. Extended time for the filing of the notice of appeal to 16 May 2022. 2. Refused leave to appeal regarding Ground 2C. 3. Allowed the appeal in part, quashed the conviction for Count 8, and substituted a guilty verdict for indecent assault on a person under 16 years. 4. Quashed the conviction for Count 11, entering a verdict of acquittal. 5. Quashed the aggregate sentence and remitted the matter for re-sentencing on the remaining convictions.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Defendant's Argument:
- The jury verdicts for Counts 1, 8, 9, 10, and 11 were unreasonable due to insufficient evidence. - There was confusion regarding his presence during the alleged incidents. - The expert evidence regarding child responses to assault was mishandled, leading to potential misinformation for the jury.
- Crown's Argument:
- Sufficient evidence existed for the jury to convict; the complainants' tendency evidence was acceptable. - The jury directions were appropriate; no miscarriage of justice in expert testimony regarding child behavior after sexual abuse.