HRJ v The Queen

In the matter of HRJ v The Queen, the High Court was presented with a case where the appellant, HRJ, was convicted on two counts of indecent acts with a child under 16 years of age, and the appellant sought to appeal both his conviction and the sentence imposed. The jury returned not guilty verdicts on three counts related to the first complainant, Y, and majority guilty verdicts on the remaining two counts concerning the second complainant, X. The appellant argued that the reaction in the courtroom to the not guilty verdicts on counts 1 to 3 may have influenced the jury’s impartiality when they later rendered the guilty verdicts on counts 4 and 5. Furthermore, HRJ contested the reliability of the evidence provided by the complainants, particularly given their young age, and questioned the appropriateness of the sentence imposed.

The legal issues before the court involved the potential for bias in the jury due to the courtroom reaction, the admissibility and reliability of the complainants’ evidence, and the proportionality and appropriateness of the sentence. The court examined whether the reaction in the courtroom created a risk of bias that could affect the impartiality of the jury on the subsequent counts. The court also considered the appellant's contention that the evidence provided by the complainants was inherently unreliable due to their age and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the reaction in the courtroom did not create a risk of bias sufficient to warrant discharging the jury. The directions provided by the trial judge were deemed sufficient to mitigate any potential bias. The court further held that there was no error in taking the verdicts on counts 1 to 3 before giving the Black direction, and that the evidence provided by the complainants was not inherently unreliable due to their age. The different verdicts for the two complainants were found to be explicable based on the evidence presented. Lastly, the court determined that the total effective sentence of three years and two months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months was not manifestly excessive.

The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.