R v MBT

The case of R v MBT involved the appellant who was convicted of raping his four-year-old granddaughter, the daughter of his de facto partner. The appellant contested the conviction, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable in light of the evidence presented, particularly pointing to the child's inconsistency during her police interview and other circumstantial evidence that suggested the incident might not have occurred. The appellant also contested the trial judge's handling of the child's unsworn evidence, claiming that the judge failed to properly assess her competency and understanding of the duty to speak the truth as required by sections 9A and 9B of the Evidence Act 1977.

The court was tasked with determining whether the jury could have reasonably concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty, and whether the trial judge's failure to properly assess the child's competency and understanding of the duty to speak the truth constituted a miscarriage of justice. The court examined the evidence presented, the child's credibility, and the trial judge's adherence to the statutory requirements concerning the competency of child witnesses giving unsworn evidence.

The court found that the jury could not have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt, given the inconsistencies in the child's account and other factors. Furthermore, the court determined that the trial judge failed to properly assess the child's competency to give evidence and understand the duty of speaking the truth, which constituted a miscarriage of justice. The court concluded that the trial judge should have made inquiries into the child's competence to give evidence, and particularly to give sworn evidence. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and verdict set aside, and a re-trial ordered.