R v Go; ex parte A-G (Qld)

The matter before the court involved an appeal against the conviction and sentence of a respondent who was found guilty of two counts of indecent dealing with a child under 16 years. The Attorney-General of Queensland appealed against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly inadequate and that the offence should result in a custodial sentence. The appeal against conviction was based on the argument that the jury's verdict was unreasonable and insupportable due to inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence were so significant as to render the jury's verdict unreasonable and insupportable, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate. The court was required to assess the credibility of the complainant's evidence, the weight of the evidence presented, and the appropriate sentence for the offence.

The court held that the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence did not impact on her credibility, and the jury's verdict was not unsafe and unsatisfactory. The court found that the jury could have been convinced of the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also held that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate and that the appeal against the sentence should be dismissed.

In conclusion, the court dismissed both the appeal against conviction and the appeal against sentence. The conviction was upheld, and the sentence of six months imprisonment to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order was affirmed.