R v C, AP

In the matter of R v C, AP, the appellant was convicted of three counts of incest and one count of indecent assault, and appealed against the conviction. The case was heard in the court of appeal, which was required to decide whether the verdicts were unreasonable, not supported on the evidence, or unsafe and unsatisfactory. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the trial judge gave adequate reasons, and whether there were inconsistencies and implausibility in the evidence presented.

The court considered the principles established in M v The Queen and Jones v The Queen, which set out the criteria for assessing the credibility of witnesses on appeal. In this case, the appeal hinged on Ground 3, which alleged that the verdicts were unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence. The appellant's counsel argued that the convictions depended solely on the evidence of a single witness, who had provided inconsistent and incorrect evidence. However, the court found that the jury, having seen and heard the witnesses, was the appropriate body to determine guilt or innocence. The court also noted that the trial judge's reasons were adequate and that there were no significant inconsistencies or implausibility in the evidence.

The appeal court dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding that the verdicts were not unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. The court acknowledged the advantage of considering the trial judge's reasons but emphasised that it was not bound to act upon their views of the credibility of the witnesses. Ultimately, the court concluded that it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty.

The court made no orders regarding the appeal.