BM v The Queen

The case of *BM v The Queen* concerned an appeal against convictions for sexual offences. The appellant, BM, was accused of indecent assault and gross indecency against four complainants, who were his nieces. The appeal focused on the trial judge's handling of evidence relating to allegations that the appellant had behaved inappropriately towards his own daughter, DM, and the alleged inconsistency between DM's denial of these allegations and the complainants' evidence.

The legal issues before the appellate court were whether the trial judge had adequately considered the inconsistency between DM's evidence and that of the complainants, and whether this inconsistency had any bearing on the issues of collusion, contamination, or cross-admissibility of evidence. The appeal also considered whether the trial judge's treatment of this evidence was appropriate given its peripheral relevance to the main charges.

The appellate court reasoned that the allegations concerning the appellant's behaviour with his daughter, DM, were at best a collateral issue at trial, relevant only to the credit of the complainants. The court found that the trial judge had indeed considered the inconsistency between DM's evidence and that of the complainants, but determined that further analysis was not required as the evidence was only peripherally relevant. Consequently, the court concluded that this inconsistency had no bearing on the issues of collusion, contamination, or cross-admissibility.

The Court granted permission to appeal on one ground but ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings.