Chenhall v Mosel

The appellant, Chenhall, appealed against his conviction and sentence on various charges related to the possession of child pornography. The primary legal issues before the court were whether discrepancies in the appellant's evidence during cross-examination could be taken into account in evaluating the evidence, and whether the conviction was supported by the evidence. The court also considered whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the evidence was not sufficient to support the conviction and that the sentence was too harsh.

The court noted that discrepancies in the appellant's evidence could be taken into account in evaluating the evidence. However, the court found that the discrepancies were not significant enough to undermine the overall reliability of the evidence. The court also found that the conviction was supported by the evidence, as the appellant had admitted to possessing child pornography and had provided a detailed account of how he had come across the material. The court further held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as the appellant had a significant criminal history and the offences were of a serious nature.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the appeal against sentence was allowed. The court ordered that the appellant be re-sentenced by a different judge, taking into account the appellant's significant criminal history and the serious nature of the offences. The court also noted that the fresh evidence provided by the appellant during the appeal did not change the outcome of the case, as it did not provide any new information that could have impacted the decision of the primary judge.