R v HAB

In the case of R v HAB, the appellant was convicted on four counts of indecent treatment of a child D and another count of indecent treatment of a different child J. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the charge concerning J but convicted the appellant on each of the counts concerning D. The appellant appealed against his conviction, arguing that the trial judge failed to direct the jury in accordance with s 21AW(2) of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld). The appeal was allowed.

The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge erred in not giving the jury the necessary directions required by s 21AW(2) of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) and whether this constituted a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court also considered whether the trial judge adequately informed the jury that the evidence by one complainant was inadmissible in proof of the charges relating to the other complainant. Additionally, the court examined whether the trial judge failed to warn the jury against the dangers of propensity reasoning, and if the judge adequately directed the jury on the weight to be given to the complainants' statements to police.

The court found that the trial judge did indeed err in not providing the necessary directions to the jury as required by s 21AW(2) of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld). The failure to warn the jury against the dangers of propensity reasoning and the inadequate direction regarding the weight to be given to the complainants' statements to police further contributed to the substantial miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and quashed the convictions. The matter was remitted for a retrial before a differently constituted jury.

No further orders were made beyond the allowance of the appeal and the quashing of the convictions. The case was to be remitted for a retrial.