R v FAL

The appellant was convicted by a jury of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child and one count of indecent treatment of a child under the age of 16 years. The appellant contends the verdict is unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence. The complainant’s central allegations were not directly supported by other evidence. The appellant argues that the complainant’s evidence was insufficient to establish an unlawful sexual relationship.

The court had to determine whether the complainant’s evidence alone was sufficient to establish an unlawful sexual relationship, despite the lack of corroborating evidence. The court also had to decide whether a “relationship” within the meaning of s 229B(2) Criminal Code (Qld) required a minimum degree of invasiveness or a minimum frequency of sexual contact. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the failure to give a direction in terms of Robinson v The Queen constituted a miscarriage of justice. The trial judge had addressed the inconsistencies between the complainant’s accounts in the summing up. The complainant was not a very young child, did not suffer any illness or disorder relevant to the assessment of her credibility, and there was no exceptional delay.

The court found that the complainant’s evidence was sufficient to establish an unlawful sexual relationship. The court also found that a “relationship” within the meaning of s 229B(2) Criminal Code (Qld) did not require a minimum degree of invasiveness or a minimum frequency of sexual contact. The court further found that the failure to give a direction in terms of Robinson did not constitute a miscarriage of justice. The appeal against conviction was dismissed.