R v Haq

The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence for two counts of incest and one count of aggravated indecent dealing with his younger sister. The trial judge convicted the appellant based on the evidence of the complainant and her sister, who shared the bedroom where the offences occurred. The appellant challenged the conviction on several grounds, including the improper admission of evidence. He argued that the evidence of sexual abuse within the family was overly prejudicial and should have been excluded. The complainant and her sister also gave evidence about sexual abuse perpetrated on them by their father and another brother, which the appellant claimed should have been excluded.

The court considered the arguments regarding the prejudicial nature of the evidence. It determined that the evidence was relevant to the circumstances of the case and did not outweigh its probative value. The court found that the identification evidence from the complainant's sister was crucial in establishing the context and circumstances of the offences. The court also examined the evidence of other sexual abuse within the family and concluded that it was relevant to the credibility of the complainant and the appellant's brother, and therefore admissible. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the verdicts were unreasonable, noting that the trial judge had carefully considered the evidence and the difficulties in recalling events from over 30 years prior.

The court also considered the appeal against the sentence, which was an effective term of three years imprisonment with no suspension or parole eligibility date. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive given the delay in reporting the offences, his status as a juvenile for some offences, and his lack of remorse. The court found that the sentence was within the appropriate range for the offences and took into account the appellant's lack of remorse and non-cooperation with authorities.

In conclusion, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused. The court upheld the trial judge's decision on the admission of evidence and the reasonableness of the verdicts, and found the sentence to be appropriate given the circumstances.