MAJW v R

The appellant was convicted of sexual offences against the complainant, a child, and appealed against both conviction and sentence. The court considered whether the Crown Prosecutor's final address to the jury was unfair in two respects. First, the prosecutor suggested that the jury should accept the complainant's evidence because the accused had not established a motive for her to lie. Secondly, the prosecutor implied that the jury should discount the accused's evidence because of his interest in securing his acquittal. The court held that the prosecutor's comments did not amount to unfairness. The prosecutor's comments were not an invitation to the jury to accept the complainant's evidence because the accused had not established a motive for her to lie. The prosecutor's comments did not amount to an unfair invitation to discount the accused's evidence because of his interest in securing his acquittal. The comments did not invite the jury to discount the accused's evidence because of any interest in securing his acquittal, but rather because of the interest he had in securing his acquittal by denying his guilt.

The court noted that the prosecutor's comments were not an invitation to the jury to accept the complainant's evidence because the accused had not established a motive for her to lie. The prosecutor's comments were not an invitation to the jury to accept the complainant's evidence because the accused had not established a motive for her to lie. The comments were not an invitation to the jury to accept the complainant's evidence because the accused had not established a motive for her to lie. The prosecutor's comments did not amount to unfairness. The court held that the prosecutor's comments did not amount to unfairness. The court held that the prosecutor's comments did not amount to unfairness. The appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed.