R v Kenward

The appeal in R v Kenward involved the respondent, Kenward, who had been convicted of several charges including aggravated sexual assault and incest. The Court of Appeal for the State heard the appeal, with the decision focusing on the legal sufficiency of the evidence and the conduct of the trial. The central legal issue was whether the trial judge had erred in allowing certain evidence and in not drawing the jury's attention to significant inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the judge's direction to the jury was sufficient to mitigate the prejudicial effect of the complainant's emotional and unresponsive behaviour during the trial.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had failed to adequately address critical inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, which undermined the reliability of her testimony. Furthermore, the judge's direction to the jury regarding the complainant's conduct was deemed insufficient to remove the prejudicial impact. The court concluded that these errors led to an unreasonable or insupportable verdict, justifying the allowance of the appeal. The court held that while the appeal against conviction was allowed and the convictions on counts 1 and 5 were set aside, there was no basis for ordering a new trial given the nature of the errors identified.

In summary, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against conviction due to the trial judge's failure to properly address inconsistencies in the evidence and the prejudicial effect of the complainant's behaviour. The convictions on counts 1 and 5 were set aside, but no new trial was ordered.