JJT v Regina

In the Federal Court of Australia, JJT sought leave to appeal against a conviction for indecent assault. The appeal was based on the claim of fresh evidence, which the applicant alleged would result in a miscarriage of justice. The court was required to determine whether the fresh evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a reconsideration of the conviction and whether the verdict was unreasonable in light of the fresh evidence. Additionally, the court needed to assess the credit of the witnesses, including the complainant, and the appropriateness of the jury directions regarding the use of the complaint, inconsistencies in the evidence, and the right to silence.

The court began by analysing the fresh evidence, which included statements from two witnesses who were not called at the original trial. The court found that the fresh evidence was indeed significant but did not automatically warrant a reconsideration of the conviction. The court then assessed the credit of the witnesses, including the complainant, and found that the evidence was credible and consistent. The court also considered the inconsistencies in the evidence and determined that they did not undermine the overall credibility of the case. Regarding the jury directions, the court acknowledged that the direction on the right to silence was inappropriate at the time of the trial but found that it was not a ground for allowing the appeal as it did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

The court concluded that the fresh evidence, while significant, did not warrant a reconsideration of the conviction. The court found that the credit of the witnesses, including the complainant, was credible, and the inconsistencies in the evidence did not undermine the overall credibility of the case. The court found that the jury direction on the right to silence was inappropriate but did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal.