R v GAP

The appellant, GAP, was convicted in the Supreme Court of Queensland of indecent treatment, wilful exposure to an indecent video tape, and rape. The complainant was the appellant's daughter. The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence, as well as applying for an extension of time to appeal against the sentence on count 5. The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge erred in failing to give a direction with respect to propensity reasoning, whether the verdicts were inconsistent, whether the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory, and whether the trial judge misdirected the jury with respect to consent.

The court found that the trial judge did not err in failing to give a direction with respect to propensity reasoning, as the evidence was not of the type that would require such a direction. The court also found that the verdicts were not inconsistent and were supported by the evidence. The court found that the appellant's submission that the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory due to inconsistencies in the complainant’s accounts and delay was without merit. The court found that the trial judge did not misdirect the jury with respect to consent, as the section of the Criminal Code relied upon by the appellant did not come into force until after the alleged offence was committed.

The court granted leave to appeal on ground 2, but dismissed the appeal against conviction. The court also dismissed the application for an extension of time to appeal against the sentence on count 5, finding that the application lacked utility.