R v Livingstone

The appellant, R, appealed against his conviction for persistent sexual exploitation of a child, with the alleged offences occurring in the late 1970s. The appeal was heard by Vanstone, White, and Kelly JJ of the court. The central dispute concerned the reliability of the complainant's evidence, particularly in relation to the timing of the alleged events, and whether the trial judge had adequately scrutinised this evidence and provided sufficient reasons for his findings.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge failed to adequately direct himself regarding the evaluation of the complainant's evidence, whether he failed to scrutinise that evidence in light of demonstrated flaws, and whether he provided adequate reasons for finding the complainant reliable despite these infirmities. Consequently, the court had to determine if the verdict was unsafe or unsatisfactory.

The court allowed the appeal, finding that the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory. The reasoning focused on the judge's assessment of the complainant's evidence, particularly in relation to the timing of events. The court held that the complainant's evidence regarding the timing of the offences was not sufficiently scrutinised, especially in light of objective evidence that called his reliability into question. The court concluded that the judge had not given adequate reasons for his findings of reliability in the face of these issues. As a result, the conviction was set aside, and a judgment and verdict of acquittal were entered.