R v Myer

In the case of R v Myer, the appellant was convicted of 11 counts of unlawful and indecent dealing with a child under 16 years and one count of rape. The appellant sought to appeal on the grounds that the verdicts were unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence. The court was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in failing to give the jury a distressed condition direction and whether the convictions were supported by the evidence. The court found that the evidence supported the complainant’s evidence on the indecent dealing counts, but it was not open to the jury to be so persuaded on the rape count. The court held that there was no inconsistency between upholding the conviction on the indecent dealing counts and quashing the conviction on the rape count.

The court considered the evidence that the appellant had a sexual interest in the complainant and was prepared to act on it, which was overwhelming and supported the prosecution case. The court found that the various matters identified by counsel for the appellant as alleged inconsistencies were all matters of little moment when evaluating the reaction of a 14-year-old child to sexual conduct of a man in his mid-30’s. The court found that it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty in relation to counts 1 to 11. However, the court found that it was not open to the jury to be satisfied of guilt beyond reasonable doubt in relation to count 12. The court found that the interpretation of the texts was supported by the complainant’s evidence that during the last visit to his apartment he had said that 15 would be when she was ready to lose her virginity to him. The court held that the text evidence provided further objective support for the criticisms advanced of the complainant’s reliability concerning count 12 founded upon the initial denials of penetration and the complainant’s delayed reporting of rape.

The court dismissed the application filed 31 October 2022 and the appeal against conviction on counts 1 to 11. The court allowed the appeal against conviction on count 12, quashed the conviction on count 12 and entered a judgment of acquittal in its place. The court held that it was not open to the jury to be satisfied of guilt beyond reasonable doubt in relation to count 12. The court held that the trial judge gave the jury an appropriate direction concerning the elements of each of the counts alleged against the appellant and summarised the arguments of counsel, including the material on which the appellant’s counsel had suggested gave rise to relevant inconsistencies and discrepancies.