R v Martens

The appellant, a senior airline pilot working in Papua New Guinea and Indonesia, was convicted of indecently assaulting the complainant, an Indigenous girl from a village near a resort where he often flew. The appellant appealed against his conviction on the grounds that the jury's verdict was unreasonable, given the conflicting evidence presented by both parties. The case hinged on the credibility of the appellant's evidence and the complainant's testimony.

The court examined whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable, considering the conflicting accounts of the events. Additionally, the court reviewed whether the trial judge's decisions to prevent defence counsel from cross-examining witnesses about a rumour and whether the prosecutor should have cross-examined a witness about a prior inconsistent statement were correct. The court also considered whether the trial judge's directions to the jury about the date of the offence were accurate and whether a special warning was necessary regarding the delayed complaint and the age and culture of the complainant.

The court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The court held that the exclusion of evidence about the rumour and the failure to cross-examine the witness about a prior inconsistent statement did not constitute reversible error. The court also found that the directions given by the trial judge were correct and that no special warning was required. The court concluded that the verdict was reasonable and that the appeal against the conviction should be dismissed. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was also refused, as the sentence was deemed to be within the appropriate range for the offence.