R v Groundwater

The appellant was convicted of four counts of aggravated indecent treatment of a child under the age of 12 years and under care, and two counts of rape. He was acquitted of two counts of rape. The appellant appealed against his convictions, arguing that the verdicts were unreasonable and inconsistent. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal, Queensland.

The legal issues before the court were whether the guilty verdicts were inconsistent with the acquittal on count 6, and whether, on the whole of the evidence, it was reasonably open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of counts 1, 2 and 7. The court noted that the complainant gave a videorecorded interview pursuant to s 93A of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) and was cross-examined at a pre-recorded hearing pursuant to s 21AK of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld). The court considered the evidence, including the complainant's account, evidence from her parents and a teacher from her school, and other exhibits.

The court found that the guilty verdicts were not inconsistent with the acquittal on count 6, as there was no obvious explanation on the evidence for that acquittal. The court held that it was reasonably open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of counts 1, 2 and 7, based on the whole of the evidence. The appeal against conviction was dismissed.

The court made no orders for a new trial.