R v Thompson

The appellant, R v Thompson, was found guilty by Judge Boylan of counts 2 and 5 of the indictment, relating to an alleged indecent assault. The complainant, J, testified about two incidents: the "piggyback incident" (count 2) and the "front wedgie" incident (count 5). The appellant appealed his conviction, primarily on the grounds that the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence, and that there was misdirection or non-direction by the trial judge.

The central legal issues before the appellate court concerned the sufficiency and reliability of the evidence presented at trial, particularly in relation to count 2, the "piggyback incident." The court was required to determine whether the evidence, when considered as a whole, established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether any inconsistencies or discrepancies in the complainant's evidence, as highlighted during cross-examination, rendered the conviction unsafe. The court also considered the potential corroborative value of certain evidence and the risk of reconstruction in the complainant's testimony.

The appellate court, comprising Vanstone, Peek, and Hinton JJ, allowed the appeal in relation to count 2. While acknowledging that the complainant's evidence regarding the "piggyback incident" was given shortly after the event and that the trial judge had found inconsistencies to be within expected bounds, the court found that it could not be satisfied of the appellant's guilt on count 2 beyond a reasonable doubt without having had the opportunity to observe and hear the witnesses directly. The court noted that the appellant's evidence and the cross-examination of the complainant revealed significant discrepancies regarding the nature and extent of the alleged touching during the "piggyback incident," including the number of occasions and the duration of contact.

Consequently, the court quashed the conviction on count 2 and directed that the appellant be retried on that count. The decision did not address count 5 in detail, implying that the appeal in relation to that count was either dismissed or not pursued on the same grounds.