R v H, ML

The appellant was convicted by a jury of two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 12 years, specifically his nine-year-old daughter. He appeals against these convictions, raising issues concerning the admissibility of evidence and the directions given to the jury. The central issues in this case revolve around the admissibility of certain evidence and the adequacy of the jury directions. The appellant argues that the trial judge should have allowed evidence that no charges were laid in Victoria, where similar offences were alleged to have occurred, and that the judge's directions to the jury were inadequate. Additionally, the appellant challenges the exclusion of parts of his police interview and the refusal to allow cross-examination on the significance of the complainant's refusal to undergo a medical examination.

The court examined the admissibility of evidence concerning the Victorian investigation and the direction given to the jury. The court found that the trial judge's decision not to permit evidence that no charges were laid in Victoria was not prejudicial to the appellant. The court held that the jury's direction to not speculate on the outcome of the Victorian investigation was sufficient and did not leave room for the jury to speculate that the appellant had been charged and convicted of Victorian offences. Furthermore, the court concluded that the exclusion of parts of the police interview and the refusal to allow further cross-examination on the significance of the complainant's refusal to undergo a medical examination did not prejudice the appellant. The court found that the directions given to the jury were adequate and that the potential significance of the complainant's refusal to undergo a medical examination was limited.

The appeal was dismissed by the court. The court found that none of the grounds of appeal were made out and that the trial judge's rulings on admissibility and directions to the jury were appropriate. The court upheld the convictions, and the appellant's appeal was unsuccessful.