R v Allen (a pseudonym)

The appellant, Allen, was found guilty by a judge alone of three counts of unlawful and indecent treatment of a child under 12 years of age. The complainant, a five and a half year old child, reported the incidents to her grandmother immediately after they occurred. The child's evidence was given under section 93A of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), and she was cross-examined under section 21AK of the same Act 16 months later. Allen appealed his conviction, submitting that the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence, that the trial judge misdirected himself in finding that the complainant’s evidence was capable of being accepted beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the judge failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting Allen’s evidence.

The court considered the appeal and the various grounds submitted by Allen. The court held that Allen's submission that the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable was without merit, as the trial judge had carefully considered the evidence and provided adequate reasons for his findings. The court also found that the trial judge's directions were not misdirections and that the judge had appropriately assessed the complainant's evidence and concluded that it was reliable and capable of being accepted beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the court held that the complainant's evidence was properly admitted under section 93A of the Evidence Act and that there was no unfairness to Allen in the trial process despite his inability to cross-examine the complainant.

The appeal was dismissed, and the court confirmed the original verdict of the trial judge. The trial judge's assessment of the evidence and his reasons for finding Allen guilty were upheld, and the court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. The court also found that the statutory process designed to protect the complainant was appropriately applied and that there was no miscarriage of justice in the trial.