Gillard v The Queen

In *Gillard v The Queen*, the appellant, Michael Alan Gillard, appealed to the court against his conviction and sentence. The original indictment, dated 7 April 2010, contained 19 counts relating to two complainants, DD and JL.

The appeal raised several legal issues. These included whether the verdict was unsafe due to multiple amendments of the dates of charges in the indictment and the alleged unavailability of new alibi evidence. The court also considered whether irregularities in the trial process caused general prejudice to the appellant, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, including the length of the non-parole period and the accumulation of sentences. Further issues concerned the interpretation of consent under section 67(1)(h) of the *Crimes Act*, specifically whether a separate or explicit abuse of authority or trust was required, and the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding consent and recklessness under section 67 of the *Crimes Act*.

The court dismissed the appeal on all grounds. It found that the amendments to the indictment did not render the verdict unsafe, nor was the prejudice suffered by the appellant particularised or substantial enough to warrant a new trial. The court held that the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor inappropriately accumulated, and that the non-parole period was not unduly high or low. Regarding the sexual offences, the court determined that an explicit abuse of authority or trust was not a necessary element for consent to be negated under section 67(1)(h) of the *Crimes Act*. Furthermore, the directions given to the jury concerning consent and recklessness were found to be adequate.