R v Harris

In the case of R v Harris, the appellant contested the trial judge's verdict of guilt on two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 years, specifically T and K. The trial judge found the appellant guilty based on evidence presented by the two complainants. The core issue revolved around whether the trial judge's conclusions were reasonable or supportable given the evidence. The appellant argued that the trial judge's findings were unreasonable and not supported by the evidence, focusing on several specific grounds of appeal.

The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge improperly used the evidence of one complainant to support the other, whether the trial judge's finding of no real risk of collusion was contrary to the evidence, and if the trial judge correctly applied Longman v The Queen in her assessment of the evidence. The appellant also contended that the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility and reliability of T and K, and failed to provide reasons for her assessment of K’s credibility.

The court examined the trial judge's reasons in their entirety and found that she had considered all inconsistencies in the evidence of T and K, and whether these affected their reliability and credibility. The court noted that the trial judge took into account the support each complainant's evidence provided to the other, and concluded that there was no risk of collusion. The court held that the trial judge's findings were supported by the evidence, and that it was reasonably open to the trial judge to accept each complainant's evidence as convincing proof of the alleged offences. Therefore, the guilty verdicts were reasonably open upon the evidence.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal. The trial judge's findings of guilt were upheld as reasonable and supported by the evidence presented at trial.