R v Webb

In the case of R v Webb, the appellant was convicted on one count of using electronic communication with intent to procure a person the appellant believed was under the age of 16 years to engage in a sexual act, contrary to the Criminal Code (Qld). The appellant was acquitted on two other counts, one of which involved grooming a child under 16 by exposing, without legitimate reason, a person the appellant believed was under the age of 16 years to indecent matter, and the other of using electronic communication with intent to procure a person the appellant believed was under the age of 16 years to engage in a sexual act. The appellant appealed against his conviction on the basis that the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence, that there were inconsistent verdicts, and that the trial judge misdirected the jury about the defence provided by s 218A(9) and s 218B(8).

The court was required to determine whether it was open to the jury to reject the appellant’s evidence that he believed Mack was aged 18 years old. The court also had to consider whether there was a way by which the different verdicts on counts two and three could be reconciled, and whether the trial judge misdirected the jury about the defence provided by s 218A(9) and s 218B(8). The court found that the appellant’s evidence that he believed Mack was aged 18 years old was credible and that the jury ought to have accepted it. The court also found that the different verdicts on counts two and three could not be reconciled, and that the trial judge misdirected the jury about the defence provided by s 218A(9) and s 218B(8).

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and substituted a verdict of acquittal on count three of the indictment. The court found that the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence, that there were inconsistent verdicts, and that the trial judge misdirected the jury about the defence provided by s 218A(9) and s 218B(8). The court held that the appellant’s evidence that he believed Mack was aged 18 years old was credible and that the jury ought to have accepted it. The court also held that the different verdicts on counts two and three could not be reconciled, and that the trial judge misdirected the jury about the defence provided by s 218A(9) and s 218B(8). The court concluded that the appellant’s conviction on count three was unsafe and unsatisfactory and that a new trial would not be in the interests of justice.