R v R

The matter before the court was an appeal by the appellant against his conviction and sentence in the County Court of Victoria. The appellant had been convicted of sexual offences against his daughter, who was seven and eight years old at the time of the alleged offences. The appellant was found guilty of four counts of indecent assault and one count of buggery, with a directed verdict of not guilty given on one of the counts. The appellant appealed against the conviction on the grounds that it was unsafe and unsatisfactory and also appealed against the sentence, claiming it was manifestly excessive. Additionally, the appellant claimed that the jury should have been given particulars of the alleged offences with the indictment.

The court considered the appeal against conviction, noting that there was a significant delay between the last alleged offence and the time the complaint was made, and that the complainant was very young at the time of the offences. The court held that there were no fresh complaints and that the delay did not affect the safety and satisfaction of the conviction. The court also considered the appeal against sentence and found that while the sentence was severe, it was not manifestly excessive. The court then considered the issue of whether the jury should have been given particulars of the alleged offences with the indictment and found that this was not necessary.

The court dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding that the conviction was safe and satisfactory. The court allowed the appeal against sentence and varied the sentence by adding a recommendation for parole after the appellant had served 15 months of the sentence of imprisonment for four years. The court also found that there was no need to give the jury particulars of the alleged offences with the indictment.