R v WAT

The appellant was convicted of three counts of indecent treatment of a child under the age of 12 who was under his care. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's conviction was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence. The appellant argued that the complainant’s evidence should not have been accepted because she failed to recall one aspect of the relevant event, failed to make an earlier complaint, and because there was a minor discrepancy between her statement and evidence. The appellant also contended that there was a motive for the complaint, and the jury was made aware of a possible motive.

The court considered the arguments and found that the matters identified by the appellant did not raise significant questions about the complainant’s credibility or reliability. The court held that on the whole of the evidence, the jury was entitled to accept the complainant’s evidence and be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant’s guilt. The court also found that the trial judge’s failure to direct the jury that they should have no regard to evidence about another person did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The court further found that the trial judge’s failure to refer to the additional measure of having a support person for the complainant did not result in a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court concluded that the appeal should be allowed and the appellant’s conviction set aside. A re-trial is ordered.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal is allowed, the appellant’s conviction is set aside and a re-trial is ordered.