R v SCL; R v SCL; Ex parte

In the case of R v SCL; R v SCL; Ex parte, the appellant, SCL, appealed against his conviction for one count of rape of a seven-year-old girl. The appeal also addressed the issue of the sentence and whether it was manifestly inadequate. The case was heard in a court of appeal in Australia.

The court had to decide whether the appellant's conviction was a miscarriage of justice due to alleged misdirections and deficiencies in the trial judge's summing up, specifically concerning the identification of lies told by the appellant. The court also had to consider whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the conviction or if it rendered the verdict unreasonable or insupportable. Lastly, the court examined whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate.

The court found that the trial judge had erred in his summing up by suggesting a line of reasoning not specifically explained by the prosecutor. The court also found that the direction regarding the lies was deficient, and that these errors caused a miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, the court held that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the conviction, and the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable on the evidence. However, the court dismissed the appeal against the sentence, finding it was not manifestly inadequate.

The orders of the court were to allow the appeal against conviction, quash the conviction, order that the appellant be retried, and dismiss the appeal against sentence by the Attorney-General.