R v HBR

The appellant, HBR, appealed against his convictions for multiple offences of indecent treatment and carnal knowledge of a child under 16 years of age, under the care of the appellant. The appellant was acquitted of one count and the jury was unable to reach a verdict on another count. The appeal was based on the contention that the verdicts of guilty were unreasonable and insupportable given the evidence presented at trial, and that new evidence should be allowed which might have provided an alibi for one of the charges. The trial court had to decide whether the verdicts were unreasonable and whether the new evidence could be considered.

The court considered whether the verdicts were unreasonable by conducting an independent assessment of the evidence, as required by SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400. The appellant argued that the complainant’s credibility was damaged by various aspects of the evidence, including alleged inconsistencies and the circumstances of the preliminary complaint. However, the court found that it was open to the jury to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the offences based on the whole of the evidence. The complainant's evidence, both in her s 93A interview and in person, was deemed credible and consistent enough to support the jury's verdicts.

The court also addressed the application to adduce new evidence in the form of an alibi for count 1. The new evidence was available but not led at trial, and it provided an alibi for the date specified in count 1. However, the date of the offence was not in dispute at trial, and the appellant did not challenge the complainant’s evidence regarding the circumstances of the offence. The court held that the new evidence did not warrant a new trial or an acquittal on count 1, and therefore the application to adduce new evidence was refused.

The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld. The court found no merit in the appeal grounds and did not grant leave to adduce new evidence.