Gordon-King v The Queen

The appeal before the court involved Gordon-King, who was convicted of aggravated indecent assault and aggravated sexual assault, and the respondent, the Crown. Gordon-King sought a new trial on grounds including the improper admission of evidence. Specifically, the issue was whether the trial judge should have admitted evidence of a complaint made by the complainant to a third party, when the complainant was available to testify. The crux of the appeal was whether the evidence was wrongly admitted, whether its admission was unfair, and whether it was admissible to re-establish the complainant's credit, in light of the compelling nature of the Crown's case.

The court examined whether the trial judge erred in admitting the evidence of the complaint to the third party. The complainant's availability to testify was a significant factor in the court's analysis. The court held that the judge did not err in admitting the evidence as the complainant's memory of the complaint could be considered fresh. Furthermore, the court found that the admission of the evidence was not unfair and was admissible to rebut any suggestion that the complainant had fabricated the allegations. The compelling nature of the Crown's case, supported by other evidence, reinforced the admissibility of the complaint evidence.

The court upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge did not err in admitting the evidence of the complaint to the third party. The court found that the complainant's memory of the complaint was fresh, the admission of the evidence was not unfair, and it was admissible to rebut any suggestion of fabrication. Given the strength of the Crown's case, the admission of the complaint evidence did not prejudice the appellant. Therefore, the appeal against conviction was dismissed.

No orders regarding a new trial were made as the appeal against conviction was dismissed. The conviction stood affirmed.