R v WAB

The case before the court involved an appeal by the appellant against his conviction of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child under 16 years, while being acquitted on two counts of the rape of the same child. The court was tasked with determining whether the evidence of uncharged acts of unlawful sexual activity was properly put to the jury and whether the appellant's conviction was inconsistent and irreconcilable with the acquittals on the rape counts. The appellant argued that the trial judge's directions to the jury were insufficient to counter the prejudicial effect of the uncorroborated evidence.

The court considered whether the admission of unparticularised evidence of uncharged acts was an error and whether it was properly put to the jury as evidence that may be relied upon in establishing a contravention of s 229B(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld). The court found that the trial judge had directed the jury as to the dangers of such evidence and the need to scrutinise it with real care. The court held that the trial judge's directions were sufficient to counter any prejudicial effect and that the evidence was properly put to the jury. The court also examined whether the conviction on the maintaining count was inconsistent and irreconcilable with the acquittals on the rape counts and found that it was not.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the whole of the evidence presented at trial and found that it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt on the maintaining count. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction. The court found that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable or unsustainable on the evidence presented. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.