RGM v R

The appellant, RGM, appealed against his conviction for aggravated sexual intercourse, as defined by section 30 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal. The dispute centred around whether the trial judge erred in his directions to the jury concerning the use of relationship or context evidence, the credibility of the complainant, the admissibility of tendency evidence, and whether the trial judge properly presented the defence case. The appeal also questioned whether the trial judge erred in his directions regarding the assessment of evidence provided by child witnesses.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the trial judge gave appropriate directions to the jury about the use of relationship or context evidence and the credibility of the complainant. The court also needed to determine if the trial judge correctly admitted and directed the jury on the use of tendency evidence and whether the trial judge failed to properly present the defence case to the jury. Additionally, the court considered whether the trial judge erred in his directions regarding the assessment of evidence provided by child witnesses.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the trial judge did not err in his directions concerning the use of relationship or context evidence. The court held that the trial judge's directions adequately guided the jury on the proper assessment of the complainant's credibility. The court also found that the trial judge did not err in his directions regarding the admission and assessment of tendency evidence. However, the court identified a failure by the trial judge in adequately presenting the defence case to the jury. Moreover, the court determined that the trial judge did not err in his directions concerning the assessment of evidence from child witnesses.

The Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction. The court ordered a re-trial of the appellant for the offence of aggravated sexual intercourse.