The Court of Appeal quashed three of W.L.’s 18 convictions for sexual assault after finding that evidence about when the alleged offending occurred placed those counts outside the period charged. It dismissed the appeal on all other conviction grounds and affirmed the remaining convictions.
W.L. had been convicted after an eight-day trial on 18 counts involving three complainants. In June 2015, he received an effective nine-year prison sentence. The Court of Appeal judgment, delivered on 13 October 2016, dealt only with the appeal against conviction; it did not determine the sentence appeal.
Three counts concerned allegations by KW, identified in the judgment as W.L.’s niece-in-law. Those counts alleged offending between July 1997 and June 1999. The prosecution case was that the alleged abuse took place while W.L. and his wife babysat KW and her sisters.
The appeal court said evidence from KW and her aunt, M, indicated that babysitting began when W.L.’s daughter, ML, was about 18 months old. The court concluded that this evidence placed the alleged offending outside the period specified in the indictment. Although it accepted that precise dates can be difficult to establish many years later, it held that three counts should have been withdrawn from the jury. It therefore quashed the convictions on counts 1, 2 and 3.
The court rejected the other substantial grounds of appeal. These included challenges to the trial judge’s summary of the evidence, directions on corroboration and separate consideration of the counts, disclosure about whether two complainants had previously seen their statements, and interruptions during cross-examination. The appeal court considered that the jury had been adequately directed to assess each count and complainant separately, and that the challenged interruptions did not make the cross-examination ineffective.
W.L. also argued that the case should have been withdrawn from the jury because of alleged weaknesses and inconsistencies in the evidence. The court said the credibility issues were for the jury to decide. Its ruling on the three KW counts was a limited exception: the court held that the timing evidence required those counts to be withdrawn. The remaining conviction appeals were dismissed, and those convictions were affirmed.