R v RAU

The appellant, R, appealed against his conviction on two counts: one of exposing a child under 12 years to an indecent act and one of indecent treatment of a child under 12 years. The decision of the appeal was considered by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary concern of the court was to determine whether the verdicts were unreasonable or insupportable considering the evidence presented. This involved an analysis of the complainant's evidence and the directions given by the trial judge to the jury about the need to carefully scrutinise the complainant's testimony.

The court examined the nature of the complainant's evidence, which was given in two police interviews and a subsequent court appearance. The complainant's accounts varied slightly between the interviews, which led to some perceived inconsistencies. Despite these inconsistencies, the trial judge had directed the jury to consider the substantial matters relevant to the complainant's credit and reliability. The court held that the jury, having been properly directed, was in the best position to assess the credibility of the complainant. The jury had been made aware of the inconsistencies and had chosen to believe the complainant's account, a decision that the court found to be reasonable given the evidence.

In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the jury's verdicts were neither unreasonable nor insupportable. The trial judge had correctly instructed the jury on the need to carefully evaluate the complainant's evidence, and the jury had done so, ultimately finding the appellant guilty. The court underscored that it was not its role to substitute its judgment for that of the jury, especially when the jury had been properly directed and had given due consideration to the evidence. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.