R v Tancock

The appellant, R v Tancock, appealed against convictions for three offences of assault causing harm and three offences of indecent assault, following a trial by judge alone. The victim was the four-year-old son of the appellant's partner. The appeal was heard by Vanstone, Blue, and Nicholson JJ of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the verdicts reached by the trial judge were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. This encompassed whether the conclusions drawn by the trial judge regarding the cause of the victim's injuries were available, particularly in light of conflicting medical opinions. Additionally, the court considered whether one of the indecent assault charges could be proven in the absence of a direct allegation by the victim against the appellant, and whether propensity reasoning was applicable.

Vanstone J, with whom Blue and Nicholson JJ agreed, held that the verdicts on counts 1 to 5 were open on the evidence and that no error of approach had been demonstrated. This reasoning was based on the combination of timely complaints made by the child, contemporaneous medical evidence, the skilful interview of the child, and the child's evidence at trial, which together constituted a strong case. Blue J, with whom Nicholson J agreed, dissented on count 6, finding that the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt.

Consequently, the appeal in relation to counts 1 to 5 was dismissed. However, the appeal in relation to count 6 was upheld, with the conviction quashed and a verdict of acquittal substituted.