R v GAM

In the matter of the Crown versus GAM, the defendant appealed against his conviction and sentence. GAM had been convicted of seven counts of sexually interfering with his step-daughter. The appeal was against his conviction and sentence. The appeal centred on whether the trial judge had erred in leaving certain evidence to the jury, in directing the jury concerning a motive in the complainant to lie, and in failing to comply with certain statutory obligations and to give a "Longman warning".

The court considered whether the trial judge had erred in leaving to the jury the evidence of "lies" as evidence of consciousness of guilt. The court found that there was no error as the evidence of "lies" was relevant to the issue of consciousness of guilt. The court also considered whether the trial judge had erred in directing the jury concerning a motive in the complainant to lie. The court found that there was no error as the direction was a proper exercise of the trial judge's discretion. The court further considered whether the trial judge had failed to comply with his obligations under s.400(3) and (6) of the Crimes Act and in failing to give a "Longman warning". The court found that there was no error as the trial judge had properly exercised his discretion in the circumstances of the case.

The court then considered whether the sentence imposed was appropriate. The court found that the total effective sentence of six years and nine months with a non-parole period of five years was excessive and reduced the sentence to five years and six months with a non-parole period of three years and nine months. The court dismissed the appeal against conviction but allowed the appeal against sentence and varied the sentence accordingly.