The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against conviction by an anonymised appellant convicted of five sexual offences against a complainant who was a child at the time of the alleged offences.
The appeal concerned convictions entered in July 2019 for rape, two counts of indecent assault and two counts of sexual assault. The appellant received an effective seven-year sentence in October 2019. The appeal was against conviction only.
The offences were alleged to have occurred between 1987 and 1994, when the complainant was aged between seven and 14. The complainant, identified in the judgment as AR, was the younger sister of the appellant’s long-term partner. The appeal judgment records her evidence about assaults in bedrooms, at the appellant’s home while she babysat, and outside the family home.
The appellant argued that frequent judicial interventions during the complainant’s evidence compromised the fairness of the trial. The Court of Appeal said interventions were often made to clarify questions, address ambiguity or ensure the witness understood what was being asked. It concluded they did not render the trial unfair.
The court also rejected a challenge to the trial judge’s decision to extend the date range on count 4. The count was amended from 1 July to 31 December 1990 to run from 1 July 1990 to 30 September 1992. The appeal argued the change came after cross-examination and caused prejudice, including because the case was old and the defence could not rely on an alibi for a shifting timeframe. The court found no injustice, noting the appellant knew his daughter’s birth date and had denied both offending and that the complainant babysat for the family. The jury was told of the amendment during the appellant’s evidence-in-chief.
The court found no basis to interfere with the trial judge’s refusal to give a corroboration warning. It said there was no corroborating evidence, but that this and the age of the case did not by themselves require such a warning. The trial judge had considered whether there were grounds to regard the complainant’s evidence as unreliable and decided that the case’s age was better addressed through a separate warning to the jury.
The appeal court also rejected the complaint that the jury should not have heard that the complainant lived in Australia and had travelled to give evidence. It said the information was background and not prejudicial; the jury had been directed that the travel and the making of a statement did not verify the statement’s contents.
The court dismissed all grounds, including the cumulative challenge, and dismissed the appeal.