R v HMA

In the case of R v HMA, the appellant was found guilty of one count of indecent treatment of a child under 16 and one count of indecent treatment of the same child while under care. The appellant had been previously tried in a judge alone trial involving a different complainant, but in which the present complainant gave preliminary complaint evidence. The appellant consistently denied the offending and claimed that he had been subjected to an attempted extortion by the complainants and his nephew. During the cross-examination of the complainant, the trial judge prohibited the appellant from raising the fact that he had been acquitted in the first trial before the jury, on the grounds that it was not relevant. The appellant contends that this ruling precluded him from relying on a legitimate line of questioning in cross-examination to challenge the credibility and reliability of the complainants and his nephew.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge's ruling that prevented the appellant from adducing evidence of his verdicts of acquittal in relation to offences concerning the complainant constituted a wrong decision of a question of law, and if so, whether this error would prevent the application of the proviso. The court considered that the improper rejection of evidence may constitute a wrong decision of a question of law, and that if there is a wrong decision of any question of law, the appellant has the right to have his appeal allowed, unless the case can be brought within the proviso. However, the court did not reach a conclusion as to whether the error would prevent the application of the proviso, as the Crown made no submission that, in the event of finding error, this Court should apply the proviso.

The court found that the ruling did constitute a wrong decision of a question of law, as it prevented the appellant from adducing evidence of his verdicts of acquittal in relation to offences concerning the complainant. The court noted that the effect of the ruling was that defence counsel was forced to adopt a trial strategy that precluded the development of a legitimate line of questioning, which was premised upon the admission of evidence of the verdicts of acquittal in the first trial. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.