BQ v R

The case of BQ v R involved an appeal against conviction by the respondent, who was found guilty of multiple counts of child sexual assault, including sexual intercourse with a child and indecent assault. The complainants were the applicant's nieces, and the appeal concerned the reasonableness of the verdicts on certain counts and the use of expert evidence. The appeal was heard in the court of appeal. The legal issues before the court included whether the verdicts on counts 1, 8, 9, 10, and 11 were unreasonable, whether there was a miscarriage of justice due to expert evidence, and whether the jury directions regarding expert evidence were adequate.

The court determined that the verdicts on counts 1, 9, and 10 were open to the jury, as the evidence supported a finding of guilt. However, regarding count 8, the court found a reasonable doubt due to the complainant's interchangeable use of the terms "in" and "on," which led to ambiguity about whether a penetrative act occurred. As for count 11, there was confusion regarding the respondent's presence during the alleged incident, leading to a reasonable doubt about whether the incident occurred as alleged. Consequently, the court allowed the ground of appeal in part, quashing the convictions on counts 8 and 11. The court also dismissed the ground of appeal regarding the expert evidence, finding that it was within the bounds of the expert's expertise and did not result in a miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, the court refused leave to raise the ground of appeal regarding jury directions on expert evidence, as there was no requirement to warn the jury about the limitations of using expert evidence in this case.

The final orders included substituting the conviction for indecent assault upon a child for the quashed conviction of sexual intercourse with a child, and remitting the matter to the District Court for resentencing. The court also quashed the aggregate sentence, allowing for a new sentencing hearing to be conducted. This outcome reflected the court's careful consideration of the evidence and legal principles involved in the appeal.