R v Tav

In the matter of the Regina v Tav, the appellant was convicted of seven sexual offences against a 10-year-old complainant, who had a mental impairment and was under the appellant’s care at the relevant time. The jury acquitted the appellant on one count but convicted him on the others. The appellant challenged the convictions on various grounds, including the inconsistency between the acquittal and the other convictions, and the reliability of the complainant’s evidence.

The court had to determine whether the acquittal on one count rendered the convictions on the other counts unreasonable or insupportable, given the evidence. The court also had to decide whether the inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence required the jury to be in doubt about her credibility, and whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied of the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether the admission of an expert witness’s evidence about the complainant’s credibility amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

The court held that the acquittal on one count did not render the convictions on the other counts unreasonable or insupportable, given the evidence. The court found that the inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence did not require the jury to be in doubt about her credibility, and that it was open to the jury to be satisfied of the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court also held that the admission of the expert witness’s evidence did not amount to a miscarriage of justice, as the evidence fell within the field of expertise of the witness. The court allowed the appeal against the conviction on count 6 and set aside the conviction with a verdict of acquittal being substituted for it. The court dismissed the appeal against conviction otherwise.

The orders of the court were that the application to amend the indictment be granted, and counts 2, 3, 5, and 8 on the indictment be amended by inserting the words “on a date unknown” before the word “between.” The appeal against the conviction on count 6 on the indictment be allowed, and that conviction be set aside with a verdict of acquittal being substituted for it. The appeal against conviction be otherwise dismissed.