R v FAD

In the case of R v FAD, the appellant appealed against his convictions for maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child under 16 years, indecent treatment of a child under care, and sodomy of a child under care. The appellant contended that the jury's verdicts were unreasonable and inconsistent with the evidence. The respondent argued that the complainant's account was credible and reliable, and that the inconsistencies present did not undermine her credibility.

The court examined whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate, whether the admission of evidence regarding the appellant's misconduct outside the charged period was appropriate, and whether any other irregularities during the trial amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The court found that the trial judge's directions, while not explicitly referring to the presence of a support person, covered all aspects of the evidence presentation, and that the omission did not result in a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court also found that the evidence of the appellant's misconduct outside the charged period was admissible for limited purposes and that its admission did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The court further determined that the trial judge's re-directions to the jury were appropriate and that any other irregularities during the trial did not amount to a miscarriage of justice.

The court concluded that the jury's verdicts were not unreasonable or inconsistent with the evidence, and that the appellant's appeal should be dismissed. The convictions were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

ORDERS:
Appeal dismissed.