R v W

The case of R v W involved a defendant facing a series of sexual offences that spanned over eight years. The primary dispute centred on the alleged incompetence of the defendant's counsel during the trial and the refusal to discharge the jury when the counsel was replaced mid-trial. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central legal issues revolved around whether the trial judge was correct in refusing to discharge the jury upon the replacement of counsel and whether special directions were necessary regarding the fresh complaint evidence, which was deemed fresh in relation to some offences and late in relation to others. Additionally, the court considered the admissibility and the basis of evidence showing a continuity of sexual relationship between the charged acts, and whether special directions were necessary on the use of such evidence.

The court examined the principle established in R v Green, where it was held that the trial judge's refusal to discharge the jury was appropriate when the replacement of counsel did not prejudice the defendant's case. The court found that the trial judge had acted within the bounds of the established legal precedents. The court also considered the nature of the fresh complaint evidence, noting that while some complaints were fresh, others were late. The court concluded that special directions were not necessary unless there was a real risk of prejudice to the defendant. Regarding the evidence of continuity of sexual relationship, the court held that such evidence could be admissible to show matters such as opportunity, absence of accident, and absence of misconception, but it was essential to give appropriate directions to the jury to avoid them using such evidence improperly. Finally, the court assessed the sentence and took into account the nature and gravity of the offences.

In conclusion, the court upheld the trial judge's decisions on the refusal to discharge the jury and the handling of the fresh complaint evidence. The court determined that the trial judge did not err in the admission and direction of evidence regarding the continuity of the sexual relationship. The final orders of the court included the confirmation of the defendant's conviction and the sentence imposed, which reflected the severity and nature of the offences committed.