Gary Boyer (a pseudonym)[1] v The Queen

The appellant, Gary Boyer, was convicted in relation to sexual offences that occurred in the 1980s, involving two complainants. The case was heard in the court of appeal. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in not giving an unreliable witness warning to the jury, pursuant to section 165 of the Evidence Act 2008, and whether the jury's verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory. Additionally, the court examined whether the judge erred by admitting evidence of previous representations made by the complainants under section 66 of the Evidence Act 2008, and whether the occurrence of the asserted fact was 'fresh in the memory' when the previous representations were made. The court also considered whether the evidence of previous representations should have been excluded under section 137 of the Evidence Act 2008.

The court found that the trial judge should have given an unreliable witness warning, as the evidence was such that no reasonable juror could find the witness credible. This omission constituted a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court also found that the judge erred by admitting evidence of previous representations without satisfying the criteria under section 66 of the Evidence Act 2008. The appellant's conviction on the first indictment was quashed, and a new trial was ordered. On the second indictment, the court found that the error in admitting the evidence of previous representations was not merely trivial, and thus the conviction was quashed, resulting in an acquittal.

The appeal was allowed, and the convictions were quashed. The court ordered a new trial on the first indictment and acquitted the appellant on the second indictment. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring the reliability of witness testimony and the proper application of statutory provisions when admitting evidence of previous representations.