RLB v The State of Western Australia

The appellant, RLB, appeals against his convictions for seven counts of indecent dealing with a child over the age of 13 years and under the age of 16 years, committed between 31 January 2009 and 1 April 2009. The charges arose from the appellant's alleged offending against the complainant, who is the daughter of JJW, the appellant's half-sister. The appellant and JJW were in an incestuous relationship during the period of the alleged offending. The appellant argues that his convictions should be quashed on five grounds: (1) the evidence led by the prosecution relating to the appellant's incestuous relationship with JJW was unfairly prejudicial, resulting in an unfair trial and a miscarriage of justice; (2) the absence of an order for a trial by judge alone resulted in a miscarriage of justice; (3) the trial judge erred in law in failing to adjourn and abort the trial; (4) additional evidence led on appeal demonstrates that a miscarriage of justice has occurred; and (5) the verdicts of guilty were unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence. The Court of Appeal finds no merit in any of the appellant's grounds of appeal. The Court rejects the submission that the evidence of the appellant's incestuous relationship with JJW was unfairly prejudicial. The Court also rejects the submission that the failure to have a trial by judge alone resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The Court finds that the appellant's failure to object to the evidence of the incestuous relationship between the appellant and JJW can be seen to have been founded upon a calculated and rational forensic decision. The Court finds that the appellant's failure to object to the evidence was not founded upon a failure to recognise that the evidence was relevant or admissible, but upon a strategic decision to emphasise the complainant's motivation for making up the allegations against the appellant. The Court rejects the submission that the refusal to adjourn the trial or to abort the trial resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The Court finds that the appellant's convictions were supported by evidence that the jury was entitled to accept and inferences that the jury was entitled to draw. The Court also rejects the submission that the additional evidence proposed to be led on appeal establishes a miscarriage of justice. The Court finds that the proposed additional evidence does not establish that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. The Court refuses the appellant's application for an extension of time to appeal, the application for leave to adduce additional evidence, and leave to appeal on grounds 1 - 5. The appeal is dismissed.