R v Bolte

In the case of R v Bolte, the appellant appealed against his conviction on two grounds. Firstly, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred by not drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution for failing to call the aunt of the complainants as a witness. Secondly, the appellant contended that the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory due to inconsistencies and omissions in the complainants' evidence, which should have led the trial judge to conclude that their evidence was not reliable to support a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Additionally, the appellant argued that there was a real risk of contamination or reconstruction in the complainants' recollections.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the trial judge erred in failing to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution for not calling the aunt as a witness and whether the failure to call the aunt as a witness gave rise to a miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, the court had to determine whether the verdicts were unreasonable or unsatisfactory considering the inconsistencies and omissions in the complainants' evidence. The court also needed to assess whether the joint trial of the charges was appropriate given the nature of the offences.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no miscarriage of justice in the trial proceedings. The court held that there was no substance to the complaint that there had been a breach of prosecutorial duty in not presenting the aunt as a witness. Regarding the second ground of appeal, the court concluded that there were no inconsistencies or omissions in the complainants' evidence that would have led the trial judge to conclude their evidence was unreliable. The court further held that the joint trial of the charges did not result in a miscarriage of justice given the approach taken by the parties and the trial judge.