R v K, MC

The appeal concerned a conviction for persistent sexual exploitation of a child. The appellant, R v K, was charged with offences against his stepdaughter, EV, who was between six and eight years old at the time of the alleged offending. EV, along with two other child witnesses, TW and SW, gave unsworn evidence at trial. The central dispute on appeal revolved around the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury concerning the unsworn evidence and the issue of corroboration.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge failed to adequately warn the jury about the need for caution when assessing the unsworn evidence of child witnesses, and whether the directions provided regarding corroboration were confusing and inadequate. Specifically, the appellant argued that the judge's statement that there was no corroborating evidence, followed immediately by a direction that the Evidence Act prohibited requiring corroboration, would have confused the jury. The appellant contended that the conviction rested entirely on EV's unsworn testimony and that the judge should have more clearly distinguished between EV's evidence and the evidence of other witnesses who testified to EV's complaints.

The court considered that the trial judge's direction, while referencing the absence of independent corroborating evidence, correctly conveyed to the jury that the prosecution's case relied solely on the truthfulness and accuracy of EV's evidence, thus necessitating careful scrutiny. The judge had also explained that the child witnesses did not understand the solemnity of an oath or affirmation, which the Director argued would have alerted the jury to the need for caution. The court found that the judge's directions, when read as a whole, adequately addressed the need for caution in assessing the unsworn evidence and the absence of corroboration.

Consequently, the court refused permission to appeal on the grounds relating to the directions on corroboration and unsworn evidence, and ordered that the appeal be dismissed.