R v C

In the matter of R v C, the appellant was convicted for multiple sexual offences against his step-grand-daughter, committed when she was between the ages of six and eleven. The appellant appealed against both his conviction and sentence, contending that there was a miscarriage of justice and that the charges were insufficiently particularised. The appeal against the conviction was heard in the Court of Appeal of a relevant Australian state.

The legal issues before the court centred on whether the charges against the appellant were adequately particularised. The appellant argued that the similar fact evidence provided was insufficient to support the conviction as it did not specify discrete and specific incidents. The Crown contended that the charges were particular enough, and that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the conviction.

The court found that the charges against the appellant were sufficiently particularised. It was held that the similar fact evidence provided was relevant and admissible, and the court was satisfied that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The court found that the appellant's arguments on particularity did not establish a miscarriage of justice. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.