R v McNamara

In the matter of R v McNamara, the appellant was convicted in the District Court on six charges of indecent dealing with a child under the age of 12, with the seventh count resulting in an acquittal. The appellant has appealed against his convictions, arguing that the verdicts are inconsistent and that the trial judge misdirected the jury on the meaning of "reasonable doubt". The appellant was a friend of the complainant’s father and the alleged offences occurred between 1990 and 1994 when the complainant was aged between 7 and 11 years. The incidents occurred at various places, including at the appellant’s residence and during holidays. The first incident involved the appellant touching the complainant on the outside of her togs in waist-deep water at Series Creek. The remaining counts involve distinct incidents on beds or bunks and at a picnic area.

The legal issues before the court were whether the verdicts were inconsistent and whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on the meaning of "reasonable doubt". The court considered the approach of an appellate court when verdicts are said to be inconsistent, as outlined in Mackenzie v R. The court noted that the appellant must satisfy the court that the two verdicts cannot stand together, meaning no reasonable jury could have arrived at the conclusion. The court also considered whether the trial judge’s direction on the meaning of "reasonable doubt" was misdirection. The court noted that it is dangerous to go beyond conventional directions when explaining the concept of "reasonable doubt" to a jury.

The court found that the appellant had not satisfied the court that the verdicts were inconsistent. The court noted that the jury's rejection of the complainant's story could only be explained by the acquittal on the second count. The court also found that the trial judge's direction on the meaning of "reasonable doubt" was not a misdirection. The court noted that the trial judge's direction was within the conventional directions given to a jury. The court concluded that the convictions were safe and satisfactory.

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the convictions. The court noted that the jury had properly considered the evidence and had come to a reasonable conclusion. The court also noted that the trial judge's direction on the meaning of "reasonable doubt" was not a misdirection. The court concluded that the convictions were safe and satisfactory.