RA v R

The appeal against the conviction and sentence was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The applicant had been convicted by a jury of indecent assault and unlawful carnal knowledge, in circumstances where the date of the offence was critical as the victim had not turned 10 at the time of the alleged offence. The applicant also appealed against the sentence imposed, claiming it was manifestly excessive. The Crown case relied on the evidence of the victim, who gave evidence of the sexual abuse by the applicant. The applicant claimed the evidence was inconsistent and unreliable, and should have left the jury with reasonable doubt as to the applicant’s guilt.

The court was required to determine whether the jury’s verdicts were unreasonable, given the alleged significant inconsistencies in the victim’s evidence. The court was also required to consider whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, in light of the historical nature of the offence and the difficulty in establishing an appropriate range for such a repealed offence, as well as the youth and immaturity of the applicant at the time of the offending. The court noted that the jury had been properly directed by the trial judge, and the evidence, although challenged by the applicant, was sufficient to support the jury’s verdicts. The court also found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account all relevant factors.

The appeal against the conviction was dismissed. The appeal against the sentence was also dismissed. The convictions and sentences imposed by the trial judge were affirmed.