R v McCallum

In this matter, the appellant, a qualified masseur and fitness coach, was convicted on six counts of unlawfully and indecently dealing with a child under 16 years of age who was under his care at a tennis centre. The child alleged that the appellant had touched her vagina multiple times during massage sessions. The appellant argued that the jury should have been directed to consider his motive, arguing that his actions, if deliberate, lacked any legitimate justification. The appellant also claimed that the verdicts were inconsistent and that the evidence did not support the guilty verdicts.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether the trial judge should have directed the jury on section 23(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, and whether the evidence warranted such a direction. Additionally, the court considered whether the trial judge's direction on the meaning of 'indecent' was adequate and whether the jury's verdicts were inconsistent or unreasonable. The court also examined the sentence imposed to determine if it was manifestly excessive.

The court held that the trial judge's decision not to direct the jury on section 23(1)(b) was not in error as the nature of the Crown's case did not necessitate such a direction. The court found that the trial judge's explanation of the term 'indecent' was sufficient, and the jury's verdicts, though seemingly inconsistent, were open to them given the directions provided. The court also determined that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range and was not manifestly excessive.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.