R v Scott

In the case of R v Scott, the applicant appealed against both his conviction and sentence. The applicant was charged with two counts of committing an indecent act with a child under the age of 16. He was acquitted on one count and convicted on the other. The case presented a situation where the evidence from the complainants was inconsistent between the committal and trial stages. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the credit given to the complainants was indivisible, whether the verdicts were inconsistent, and whether the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory, unreasonable, or not supported by the evidence. Additionally, the court considered whether the sentencing judge had taken into account the previous acquittals when formulating the sentence, and whether the applicant's conduct was improperly described as 'predatory' by the sentencing judge. The court also examined whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court examined the inconsistencies in the complainants' testimonies and determined that their credit was not indivisible. This meant that the court could assess the credibility of each complainant independently. The court found that the verdicts were not inconsistent and were supported by the evidence presented. Regarding the sentence, the court found that the sentencing judge had not taken into account the previous acquittals when formulating the sentence. However, the court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive despite the sentencing judge's description of the applicant's conduct as 'predatory'.

The applicant's application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The court found that the verdicts were safe and satisfactory, and the sentence was not manifestly excessive. Therefore, the conviction and sentence remained in place. The court did not find any grounds for allowing the appeal, and the applicant's appeal was dismissed in its entirety.