GAC v Regina, WC v Regina

In the case of GAC v Regina and WC v Regina, the appellants, GAC and WC, sought to appeal their convictions and sentences. The appellants were convicted of various criminal offences, including sexual offences, and were sentenced to imprisonment. The appellants argued that the evidence of a police interview with the complainant in 1995 was wrongly admitted, and that the probative value of the evidence was outweighed by the prejudice it caused to the accused. The appellants also argued that the trial judge failed to direct the jury on the relevance of the delay in the complaint, and that the Crown's address was improper. Additionally, the appellants argued that the verdict was unreasonable having regard to the delay in the complaint and the evidence contradicting the complainant.

The court held that the evidence of the police interview was properly admitted, as the probative value of the evidence was not outweighed by the prejudice to the accused. The court also held that the trial judge did not err in failing to direct the jury on the relevance of the delay in the complaint, as no such direction was sought by counsel for the accused. The court further held that the Crown's address was not improper, as the trial judge did not criticise it, and no request was made for a remedial direction. The court held that the verdict was not unreasonable having regard to the delay in the complaint and the evidence contradicting the complainant, as the complainant's evidence was not demonstrably or arguably unreliable or incredible, and more than inconsistency or contradiction was required to establish unreasonableness.

The court also considered the appellants' argument regarding the sentence. The court held that the trial judge had given effect to the special circumstances by reducing the head sentence by fifty per cent and reducing the non-parole period from 7 years to 5 years. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate, and dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence. The court held that the appeal should be dismissed, and that the convictions and sentences were upheld.