R v DD

The appellant, DD, appealed against his conviction for incest and indecent assault (seven counts) against his daughters and a friend, all of whom were aged between 11 and 13 years at the time of the offences, which occurred over 30 years ago. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. DD contended that his conviction for incest was unsafe and unsatisfactory and that the trial judge should have left the alternative verdict of attempted incest to the jury. Additionally, DD argued that there were latent duplicity counts of indecent assault, and the trial judge should have directed the jury on the admissibility and cross-admissibility of evidence of uncharged acts. DD further argued that the jury directions on uncharged acts were inadequate and that the trial judge should have given a Burns direction.

The High Court found that the trial judge erred in not leaving the alternative verdict of attempted incest to the jury. The Court also found that there were latent duplicity counts of indecent assault, and the trial judge should have directed the jury on the admissibility and cross-admissibility of evidence of uncharged acts. The Court found that the jury directions on uncharged acts were inadequate and that the trial judge should have given a Burns direction. The Court found that the failure to give a Burns direction was a significant error that affected the fairness of the trial. The Court also found that the trial judge erred in not giving directions on collusion/concoction, failing to sever counts, and not directing the jury on evidence of good character. The Court found that the references to 'victims' were inappropriate and that the aggregate of errors affected the fairness of the trial.

The High Court allowed the appeal in part and quashed the conviction for incest and the convictions for indecent assault on counts 6, 7, and 8. The convictions on counts 1 to 5 were upheld. The Court found that the errors made by the trial judge affected the fairness of the trial and that the appellant's convictions for incest and indecent assault on counts 6, 7, and 8 were unsafe and unsatisfactory. The Court ordered a re-trial for the offences on counts 6, 7, and 8, and the appellant was to be released on bail pending the re-trial.