R v BDM

In the case of R v BDM, the appellant appealed his convictions, arguing that they were unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence. The appellant was convicted of various offences involving the sexual abuse of his daughter over a period spanning from 1990 to 1994. The primary legal issue before the court was whether it was open to the jury to find the complainant's evidence reliable and credible, and thus to convict the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

The court examined the evidence in detail, considering various factors such as the complainant's prior complaints, her consistency in recounting the events, and the appellant's denial of the allegations. The court noted that the complainant had made preliminary complaints between 1994 and 2013, well before engaging in any therapy, and found no evidence that her account had varied. The court further found that the jury was entitled to reject the notion that the complainant's participation in therapy rendered her inherently unreliable.

The court concluded that the jury, acting reasonably, was entitled to accept the complainant's evidence as credible and reliable. The appellant's arguments about potential inconsistencies and the inherent improbability of the events did not compel the jury to entertain a reasonable doubt as to the appellant's guilt. The court held that the jury's verdicts were not unreasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the jury's verdict and upholding the appellant's convictions. The court found no significant possibility that an innocent person had been convicted of the offences.