R v GRIMWOOD

The appeal concerned a conviction by a trial judge of the appellant, Mr. Grimwood, on four counts of sexual intercourse contrary to section 49(3) of the *Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935*. The appellant was the stepfather of the complainant's friend, and the dispute centred on whether the trial judge's verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence presented.

The primary legal issue before the appellate court was to determine whether the verdict of the trial judge was unreasonable and unsatisfactory, having regard to the entirety of the evidence. This required the court to assess the credibility of the complainant and the appellant, and to consider whether any inconsistencies or alleged implausibilities in the complainant's testimony were sufficient to undermine the trial judge's findings.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that the conviction was largely based on the trial judge's acceptance of the complainant's evidence over that of the appellant. The court concluded that the evidence strongly supported the complainant's testimony, and that any inconsistencies or alleged implausibilities were not significant enough to displace the trial judge's findings as to the complainant's credibility. The findings of the trial judge were considered to be open and reasonably made based on the evidence presented.