R v BDJ

The appellant in this case has appealed against his convictions for multiple counts of indecent treatment of children and rape, among other offences, arguing that the trial judge made several errors that led to an unsafe and unfair verdict. The respondent argued that the trial judge's errors did not result in a substantial miscarriage of justice. The appellant was found guilty of two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 years of age under 12, six counts of rape, one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child, two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 years of age under care, and two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 years of age under 12 under care. He was found not guilty of two counts of common assault. The appellant was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment for the count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child and lesser concurrent periods of imprisonment for the remaining counts. The appellant appealed on several grounds, including that the trial judge erred in ruling that the Crown could charge that the complainants were under 12 years of age, that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of conversations between the appellant and one of the complainants, and that the Crown did not sufficiently or properly particularise each of the counts. The court found that there was no doubt that at the time each of the acts the subject of Counts 1 and 7 was committed by the appellant, that act constituted an offence of indecent treatment of a child, provided that child was under the age of 14 years. However, the court found that there was insufficient evidence to support Count 12, and that the verdict in respect of Count 12 ought to be set aside and a verdict of acquittal entered in its place. The court found that the appellant's convictions on Counts 1 to 4, 7 to 11, and 13 to 15 ought to be set aside and a new trial ordered. The court also found that the appellant's conviction in respect of Count 12 should be set aside, with a verdict of not guilty entered in its place. The appeal was allowed, the appellant's conviction on Count 12 was set aside and a verdict of acquittal entered on that count, the appellant's convictions on Counts 1 to 4, 7 to 11 and 13 to 15 were set aside, and there was a new trial in respect of Counts 1 to 4, 7 to 11 and 13 to 15.