R v GAO

The case of R v GAO involved the appellant who was convicted on two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 years. The child was under 12 years of age at the time of the offence. The appellant was sentenced on one count to nine months imprisonment, suspended after serving four months and operational for 12 months, and on the other count, the sentence was three months imprisonment. The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence, claiming a miscarriage of justice due to a series of procedural errors during the trial.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's conviction should be quashed and a new trial ordered due to a series of errors in the trial process. The appellant's counsel argued that the primary judge misdirected the jury by including the s 93A interviews in the exhibits provided to the jury during their deliberations. The primary judge did not discuss this decision with counsel, and counsel did not object to the decision. Moreover, the primary judge did not specifically remind the jury of what emerged in the relevant cross-examinations to the s 93A interviews, and did not warn the jury against the risk of giving the s 93A evidence disproportionate weight. This raised the possibility that the jury may have given the s 93A evidence disproportionate weight, which could have led to a miscarriage of justice.

The court found that the primary judge's decision to include the s 93A interviews in the exhibits provided to the jury during their deliberations was an error. The court held that the primary judge should have specifically reminded the jury of what emerged in the relevant cross-examinations to the s 93A interviews and warned the jury against the risk of giving the s 93A evidence disproportionate weight. The court concluded that the appellant's conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory, and that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. The court quashed the appellant's conviction and ordered a retrial on the two counts.

The court ordered that the appellant's convictions be set aside, and that a retrial be held on the two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 years. The court also granted leave to amend the appellant's outline. The court's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that juries are properly directed and warned when considering evidence obtained through s 93A interviews. The court's decision also underscores the need for trial judges to be mindful of the potential risks of misdirection when including such evidence in the exhibits provided to the jury during their deliberations.