The Court of Appeal has dismissed B.V.’s appeal against convictions for rape, rape under section 4 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Amendment Act 1990, and 27 counts of sexual assault.
B.V. was convicted on 11 July 2016 of offences alleged to have been committed against his stepdaughter, identified in the judgment as S. The appeal was decided by Birmingham, Mahon and Edwards JJ. in a judgment delivered by Birmingham J. on 29 January 2018.
The appeal raised three grounds. The first challenged the admission of evidence about a confrontation between S., her mother and B.V. S.’s account was that, during an argument at the family home on a night before Christmas Eve—she thought in 2005—she told B.V. that he had abused her. She said he called her “a crazy bitch like your mother.” The prosecution argued the exchange was relevant to B.V.’s reaction to the accusation; it did not seek to introduce it as recent complaint evidence. The trial judge admitted it for the jury to assess. The Court of Appeal agreed that the confrontation was relevant and admissible.
The second ground concerned the trial judge’s decision not to give the jury a corroboration warning. The judge considered the issue during the trial, including concerns raised about differences between S.’s statements, when she specified dates, counts omitted from the indictment, and the passage of time. He concluded those matters did not justify a warning and would be addressed in his directions to the jury. The Court of Appeal said he had considered the question with particular care and applied the correct principles. It found no basis to interfere with his decision.
The final ground challenged the judge’s comment that the selected jury foreman would chair deliberations. The appeal court said a foreman may chair, but need not do so; the jury could proceed without a chairperson or choose another juror. It found nothing improper in the judge’s remarks and dismissed this ground in limine.
The Court rejected all three grounds and dismissed the appeal. The judgment therefore left the convictions in place; it did not order a new trial or otherwise alter them.