R v Hamra (No 2)

The case of R v Hamra (No 2) involved the defendant, Hamra, charged with maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child, specifically count 1 relating to the victim B, and count 2 relating to the victim G. The trial followed a previous ruling that severed the counts due to insufficient similarities between the accounts of the complainants to sustain cross-admissibility. The prosecution proceeded with the trial of count 1 first, focusing on the evidence provided by B. The underlying facts presented B and G, brothers who were allegedly abused by the accused when they were children. The accused, a school teacher, began tutoring one of the brothers, S, and subsequently became a close friend of the family, often staying overnight. The alleged abuse of B took place when he was between the ages of 13 to 16, while G was between 9 or 10 and 16 years when the events surrounding count 2 occurred.

The legal issues before the court were to determine whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt the five elements required to establish the offence of persistent exploitation of a child. These elements included that the accused was an adult, committed more than one act of sexual exploitation, committed at least two acts of sexual exploitation, committed these acts over a period of at least three days, and that the complainant was under 17 at the time of the alleged offending. The court needed to assess whether the evidence provided by B, the complainant, was sufficiently specific and detailed to support a conclusion of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The court found that the evidence provided by B was highly generalised and non-specific, lacking details regarding times, dates, and specific incidents. B was unable to identify particular incidents, occasions, circumstances, or events beyond what typically or routinely occurred. The court concluded that the evidence was incapable of supporting a conclusion of proof beyond reasonable doubt. As a result, the court determined that there was no case to answer and directed a verdict of not guilty. The court emphasised that this decision did not reflect adversely on the credibility of B but rather on the generalised and non-specific nature of the evidence.

The final orders of the court were to acquit the defendant of count 1 on the basis that the prosecution failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The court reiterated that the decision did not reflect adversely on the credibility of the complainant but on the lack of specific and detailed evidence to support the charges.