19 Sept 2023
The Court dismissed the appeal because the verdicts were not unreasonable or inconsistent given differences in evidential support for particular incidents, the amendment of charge 15 to accord with the complainant's evidence did not prejudice the defence, and the trial judge's directions on ACC compensation and delay were lawful and orthodox.
8 Dec 2020
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's own evidence and cross-examination put motive and delay in issue and thereby opened the door to A's re-examination explanation; the foster daughter's email was admissible to prove receipt rather than the truth of its contents; the trial Judge properly balanced probative value and prejudice under s 8 Evidence Act 2006 and gave directions; there was no real prospect of miscarriage of justice nor matter of general or public importance warranting leave.
2 Dec 2019
Section 232(4)(a) requires assessing whether an identified error, irregularity or occurrence created a real risk the outcome was affected (i.e. a reasonable possibility of a different verdict). Applying that test, the Supreme Court held the new evidence (apartment manager testimony and MSD records) did not create such a real risk because it was at best evidence of opportunity, not definitive, and the defence theory of collusion and copycat allegations had already been fully ventilated to the jury; accordingly no miscarriage of justice arose and the appeal was dismissed.
18 Jun 2019
Leave to appeal was refused because the prosecutor's remark about the number of boys, while regrettable, was immaterial in the context of the overall evidence and did not create a real possibility of miscarriage of justice; the other proposed grounds were fact specific, were not raised in the Court of Appeal, and do not raise questions of general or public importance warranting leave.
14 Dec 2017
The High Court held the trial Judge did not err in assessing Facebook messages, delay or credibility such that those findings alone required quashing; however BN's fresh evidence was credible, cogent and created a real risk that the verdicts on some charges could have been different, therefore the convictions were set aside and a retrial ordered.
6 Jul 2017
The Supreme Court dismissed leave because the applicant failed to show a substantial miscarriage of justice; the Court of Appeal had properly applied R v Owen and reasonably concluded the jury had a sufficient and proper basis to prefer the complainant's evidence, so the verdicts were not ones no jury could reasonably have reached.
22 Dec 2016
The Court held the guilty verdict on the rape charge was not unreasonable: the complainant's evidence together with contemporaneous records and complaints provided a sufficient evidential basis for a reasonable jury to convict; the acquittals on other counts did not render the verdict inconsistent; and although the Judge's stated reasons for declining a s122 warning were flawed, the failure to give the warning was not clearly erroneous and did not cause a miscarriage of justice because the Judge properly directed the jury on credibility and reliability and the jury's verdicts showed they appl…
7 Apr 2016
Viewed in context the abbreviated perseverance (Papadopoulos) direction was not inadequate or coercive; the jury's subsequent conduct showed no undue pressure; the s127 and s122 directions were adequate for the issues of delay and reliability; the pattern of convictions and acquittals was coherent with the evidence and ages of the complainant; no miscarriage of justice occurred and the appeal is dismissed (extension of time granted).
13 Jul 2015
Read as a whole the trial judge's directions adequately explained the Crown's burden of proof, properly cautioned the jury on how to treat competing accounts and appropriately directed them on delay under s127(2); any isolated shortcomings did not create a real risk of miscarriage of justice and the mens rea ground was not pursued, therefore the appeal was dismissed.