R v Murdoch

In the case of R v Murdoch, the appellant was convicted of three counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 and acquitted of two counts. The appellant appealed against the convictions on the grounds that the verdicts were unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. Additionally, the appellant argued that there were errors in the trial judge's summing up, including an alleged failure to give adequate hearsay and propensity directions. The appellant also challenged the admissibility of Exhibit 5, a report by the school counsellor who had died before the trial, arguing it should not have been admitted as it contained second-hand hearsay and was not within the scope of s 93 of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld).

The court was required to determine whether the verdicts were unreasonable or insupportable in light of the evidence, whether the trial judge's directions on hearsay and propensity were adequate, and whether Exhibit 5 should have been admitted. The court considered the evidence, the inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, and the trial judge's directions. The court found that the jury was properly directed and that the inconsistencies did not undermine the verdicts. The court also held that Exhibit 5 was properly admitted as it fell within the scope of s 93 of the Evidence Act.

The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts and that the trial judge's directions were adequate. The court found that the verdicts were not unreasonable and dismissed the appeal. The application to appeal against sentence was also refused.