R v Ensbey; ex parte

The appellant, a pastor, was convicted of destroying evidence by shredding a diary that documented an inappropriate sexual relationship between a child and an adult parishioner. The court was asked to determine whether it was reasonably open to the jury to conclude that the appellant's intention in destroying the diary was not to prevent it being used as evidence in a court case. The appellant argued that there were two reasonable hypotheses as to his intention, and that he should have received the benefit of the doubt. The court also considered whether the sentence imposed, six months imprisonment, wholly suspended, with an operational period of two years, was manifestly inadequate in the circumstances.

The primary legal issue was whether the jury could reasonably conclude that the appellant's intention in destroying the diary was not to prevent it from being used as evidence. The court noted that the jury was entitled to infer that the appellant's intention was to prevent the diary from being used as evidence, given the context and the nature of the relationship documented in the diary. The court found that it was reasonably open to the jury to conclude that the appellant's intention was not to prevent the diary being used as evidence, as the jury could have found that the appellant destroyed the diary for reasons unrelated to the evidence it contained. The court also noted that the jury was entitled to consider the appellant's conduct in returning the shredded diary to the family, which suggested that the appellant did not intend to prevent the diary from being used as evidence.

The court found that the jury's conclusion that the appellant intended to prevent the diary from being used as evidence was open to them and that the appellant was properly convicted. The court also found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly inadequate in the circumstances, and dismissed the appeal against sentence by the Attorney-General. The appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the sentence appeal by the Attorney-General was also dismissed.