KBT v The Queen

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by KBT against the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal, which had upheld his conviction for maintaining a sexual relationship with a child under section 229B(1) and (1A) of the *Criminal Code* (Qld). This offence required the commission of an act defined as constituting an offence of a sexual nature on three or more occasions. The central dispute concerned the nature of the evidence required to prove the offence and the directions given to the jury.

The primary legal issues before the High Court were whether the jury was required to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to the commission of the *same* three specific acts that constituted offences of a sexual nature, or whether evidence of a general course of sexual misconduct was sufficient. Further, the Court had to determine whether any failure by the trial judge to direct the jury in the former terms occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice, and if so, whether the proviso to section 668E(1A) of the *Criminal Code* (Qld) should be applied.

The High Court reasoned that section 229B(1) and (1A) of the *Criminal Code* (Qld) required proof of three or more distinct acts, each of which constituted an offence of a sexual nature. The jury needed to be satisfied of the commission of three specific acts, not merely a general course of conduct. The Court found that the jury directions at trial had not adequately conveyed this requirement, leading to a substantial miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Court of Appeal relating to count 2 of the indictment, quashed the conviction on that count, and ordered a retrial.