R v GT

The appellant, GT, appealed against his conviction and sentence for multiple counts of sexual assault. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge's decision to allow the jury to access pre-recorded video statements during their deliberations, without giving a warning about the need for care not to give undue weight to the evidence, constituted a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the trial judge erred in admitting the written statements of the complainant and a witness under section 93A of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), given that the complainant and witness were 16 years old at the time of trial, not children as required by the statute.

The court considered that there is no general prohibition on the use of video recordings made under section 21AM in jury deliberations. The court held that the trial judge did not err in allowing the jury to access the pre-recorded video statements, as the jury had extensive cross-examination of the complainant available to them. The court also noted that the lack of a warning about the need for care did not necessarily lead to a miscarriage of justice, given the comprehensive nature of the available evidence. Regarding the admission of the written statements under section 93A, the court found that the subsequent amendment to the statute, which removed the requirement that the maker of the statement be a child at the time of trial, operated retrospectively and thus did not affect the admissibility of the statements. The court concluded that the trial judge did not err in this regard.

Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal. The conviction and sentence of the appellant were upheld, and no new trial was ordered.