R v LRG

In the case of R v LRG, the defendant appealed against his conviction for multiple sexual offences against two children. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal. The central issue was whether the trial judge’s handling of the video-assisted testimony (VATE) of one of the complainants, coupled with other alleged procedural errors, amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

The court examined whether the trial judge should have asked the uninvolved complainant to attest to the truthfulness of the VATE tapes, and if the failure to do so constituted a miscarriage of justice. It also considered whether the jury was sufficiently warned about the difficulties caused by the delay between the alleged offences and the trial, and whether the direction given to the jury against propensity reasoning was adequate. The court further assessed if the aggregate of errors or irregularities resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, observations made by one of the judges about uncharged acts were examined for their impact on the trial’s fairness.

The Court of Appeal held that while there were procedural errors, they did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. The court found that the trial judge’s failure to ask the uninvolved complainant to attest to the truthfulness of the tapes did not affect the trial's fairness given the absence of any objection at the trial. The jury was adequately warned about the difficulties caused by the delay, and the direction given was sufficient to guard against propensity reasoning. The cumulative effect of the errors did not prejudice the defendant’s right to a fair trial. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.