Godden v The Queen

The appellant, Godden, was convicted by a jury of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with his niece in law, who was between 10 and 11 years old at the time of the offending. The alleged sexual acts occurred on approximately four occasions between June 2017 and September 2018. The appeal concerned several grounds, including alleged errors in the trial judge's directions regarding the evidence of complaint and the complainant's subsequent conduct, the fairness of the trial due to the appellant's evidence about a "policy" and the prosecution's address on that evidence, procedural unfairness in the handling of jury questions, and the adequacy of the presentation of the defence case. The appellant also argued that the verdict was unsafe, unreasonable, and against the weight of the evidence.

The central legal issues before the appellate court were whether the trial judge had adequately directed the jury on the use of the complainant's evidence of complaint and her subsequent conduct, and whether the defence case had been presented fairly. The court also considered whether the appellant had suffered prejudice by not being able to disclose the true reason for a policy he claimed to have with his wife regarding not being alone with the complainant, and whether the jury's questions had been handled in a way that led to a miscarriage of justice. Finally, the court had to determine if, despite any alleged flaws in the evidence, the jury was still plainly entitled to convict the appellant.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Kelly P and Lovell JA with Doyle JA agreeing, granted permission to appeal on all grounds but ultimately dismissed the appeal. The court found that the trial judge's directions regarding the evidence of complaint and the complainant's conduct were adequate, and that evidence of her reluctance to attend the appellant's house was properly admitted to explain the cessation of offending, without being used for an impermissible purpose. The court held that the appellant suffered no prejudice from not revealing the real reason for his policy, and that the handling of jury questions did not lead to a miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, the court determined that the trial judge's directions on the defence case were sufficient, and that even with potential flaws in the complainant's evidence, the jury was entitled to reach its verdict.