R v Thomson

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the appellant, Thomson, appealed against his convictions and sentences for multiple counts of sexual assault involving two complainants. The primary legal issues revolved around the admissibility of similar fact evidence and whether the trial judge erred in not severing the indictment under section 597A of the Criminal Code (Qld). The court had to determine if the evidence was cross-admissible and whether it had sufficient probative force to justify its admission. Additionally, the court examined whether the trial judge's comments during summation misled the jury and whether there was a miscarriage of justice.

The court found that the evidence of one complainant was indeed cross-admissible to consider the charges involving the other complainant, as it established the appellant's tendency to engage in sexual activities with underage girls. The similarities in the complainants' accounts, despite differing in specific details, demonstrated the appellant's unusual disposition and disregard for the risk of discovery. The court held that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect, following the principles outlined in Hughes v The Queen. The court also concluded that the trial judge's comments, while perhaps not ideal, did not lead to a miscarriage of justice. The judge's remarks about the complainants being "pubescent" did not misdirect the jury, and the verdict was not unreasonable or insupportable given the evidence.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal as there was no substantial miscarriage of justice. The trial judge did not err in admitting the similar fact evidence, and the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence presented. The court upheld the convictions and sentences imposed on the appellant.