R v G; ex parte

The matter before the court was an appeal by the accused against his convictions for indecent dealings with a child under the age of 16. The case involved a complainant who alleged that the offences occurred while she lay adjacent to her sleeping mother. The evidence presented by the complainant was inconsistent and improbable, and there was no corroboration or contemporaneous complaint. Despite the accused’s evidence contradicting the complainant’s account, it remained consistent under cross-examination. The court was tasked with determining whether the aspects of the complainant’s evidence were so improbable and inconsistent that the jury could not be convinced of the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The court found that the evidence presented by the complainant was inconsistent and improbable, and there was no corroboration. The jury’s verdict was deemed unsafe and unsatisfactory, and the conviction was quashed. The court held that the aspects of the complainant’s evidence were such that the jury could not be convinced of the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Additionally, the Attorney-General’s appeal against the sentence was dismissed as it was inappropriate to decide the appeal against the sentence.

The appeal against the convictions was allowed, and the verdict of guilty was set aside and replaced with an acquittal on all three counts. The court found that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions, and the accused was acquitted. The Attorney-General’s appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and no further action was taken regarding the sentence. The court’s decision was based on the evidence presented and the inconsistencies and improbabilities within the complainant’s account.