R v LISTER

The appeal concerned a conviction for aggravated indecent assault (count 1), following a jury verdict of not guilty on charges of unlawful sexual intercourse (count 2) and aggravated indecent assault (count 3). The prosecution's case rested heavily on the evidence of the complainant, who was 10 years old at the time of the alleged offences and 14 at the time of trial. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, comprising Kourakis CJ, David and Stanley JJ.

The appellant sought to overturn his conviction on count 1, advancing three grounds of appeal. These included the assertion that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory, and against the weight of the evidence. Secondly, the appellant argued that the guilty verdict on count 1 was inconsistent with the not guilty verdicts on counts 2 and 3, rendering the conviction unsafe. Finally, the appellant contended that the trial judge erred by failing to specifically direct the jury on the inconsistency between the complainant's in-court testimony and her prior denials of any offending by the appellant.

The Court dismissed the first ground, finding that a critical assessment of the complainant's evidence did not lead to the conclusion that a reasonable jury must have harboured a reasonable doubt about the appellant's guilt on count 1, given the supporting evidence. Regarding the second ground, the Court held that the verdicts were reconcilable. The acquittals on counts 2 and 3 did not necessarily signify a rejection of the complainant's evidence but rather a lack of preparedness to find those charges proven beyond reasonable doubt based solely on her evidence, due to inconsistencies. Any doubts that led to acquittal on those counts would not necessarily have destroyed the complainant's credibility to the extent of creating reasonable doubt about her entire testimony. Permission to appeal on the third ground was refused, as the Court determined the trial judge was not required to give a specific direction on the complainant's prior denials, particularly as the appellant's counsel had made strong submissions on the matter and the jury had received a general direction on prior inconsistent statements.

The appeal was dismissed.