R v Hare

The case of R v Hare involves an appeal by Jeffrey Peter Hare against his convictions on two counts of indecent assault on a single complainant, who shall be referred to as V. The trial took place in the District Court, and Hare now contests the verdicts on the grounds of inconsistency and the manner in which the trial judge instructed the jury on the use of evidence from one count in considering the others. The events in question occurred in 2000 when V was approximately 12 years old, and the incidents took place on three separate occasions: during a school holiday at a caravan park, at a friend's house, and on a houseboat trip. Hare was acquitted of the third count but found guilty of the first two.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the verdicts were inconsistent and whether the jury was properly directed regarding the use of evidence from one count in relation to the others. The court examined the trial judge's instructions to the jury, specifically a "propensity warning" given despite the lack of a clear requirement for such a direction in cases with multiple counts involving the same victim. The court also considered whether the directions given to the jury were misdirections and whether they could have influenced the jury's verdict.

In evaluating the appeal, the court noted that while the trial judge provided a propensity warning, it was not strictly necessary. The court referenced the decision in R v Tedesco, where it was held that a propensity warning is not required in every case with multiple charges against the same victim. The court found that any misdirection regarding the use of evidence was, in fact, favourable to the appellant, as it potentially could have mitigated against the appellant's conviction. The court concluded that neither ground of appeal was successful, as the verdicts were not unreasonable or insupportable, and any misdirection did not prejudice the appellant to a significant degree.

The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions on the first two counts were upheld. The court found that the trial judge's directions, despite any perceived shortcomings, did not undermine the validity of the jury's verdicts. The evidence presented was sufficient to support the convictions, and the court determined that the appeal did not meet the threshold for overturning the jury's findings.