FB v R

The case of FB v R involved an appeal against the conviction of the appellant, who had been found guilty of aggravated sexual assault. The appeal raised several issues related to the trial, including the admission of tendency evidence, the credibility of the complainant, and the competence of the defence counsel. The central dispute was whether the trial judge had erred in various respects that could have led to a miscarriage of justice.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether the trial judge had improperly admitted tendency evidence under section 97 of the Evidence Act, whether the judge had failed to adequately consider the credibility of the complainant, and whether the defence counsel's failure to present certain media evidence amounted to incompetence. Additionally, the court examined whether the judicial questioning during the trial had unfairly influenced the outcome.

The court found that the trial judge had correctly admitted the tendency evidence as it had significant probative value in establishing the appellant's propensity towards similar offences. The court also determined that the trial judge had appropriately considered the credibility of the complainant and had not erred in his directions to the jury. Furthermore, the court concluded that the defence counsel's failure to present media evidence did not constitute incompetence and did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The court also held that the judicial questioning did not unfairly prejudice the appellant.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The court affirmed the trial judge's decisions and found no grounds for overturning the appellant's conviction.