Hamra v The Queen

This case concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia following a decision by the Court of Criminal Appeal of South Australia. The appellant, Hamra, had been acquitted of the offence of persistent sexual exploitation of a child under section 50 of the *Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935* (SA) after a trial by judge alone. The trial judge had upheld a "no case to answer" submission, finding the complainant's evidence too generalised to establish two or more distinct acts of sexual exploitation. The prosecution appealed this acquittal.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge erred in finding that the complainant's evidence, taken at its highest, was incapable of sustaining a conviction for persistent sexual exploitation of a child. This required the Court to consider the interpretation of section 50 of the *Criminal Law Consolidation Act*, specifically whether it mandated the particularisation of each distinct act of sexual exploitation, or if a jury could infer the commission of multiple acts from generalised evidence. The Court also considered whether the majority of the Court of Criminal Appeal had adequately addressed the question of permission to appeal.

The High Court reasoned that a "no case to answer" submission should only be upheld if the evidence, taken at its highest, could not lawfully support a guilty verdict. The Court held that section 50 of the *Criminal Law Consolidation Act* did not require the prosecution to particularise each distinct occasion or transaction of sexual exploitation. Instead, it was permissible for a judge or jury to deduce the occurrence of two or more acts through simple logic, provided they reached a unanimous or statutory majority conclusion as to the same acts. The Court found that the complainant's evidence, if believed, was capable of supporting a finding that two or more acts of sexual exploitation had occurred, and therefore a case to answer did exist.

The appeal was dismissed. The High Court affirmed the decision of the majority of the Court of Criminal Appeal, which had quashed the acquittal and remitted the case for a new trial.