RO v R

In the matter of RO v R, the appellant, the step-father of the complainant, appealed against his conviction on two counts of sexual intercourse and indecent assault, and against his sentence. The trial involved eight counts of sexual intercourse and indecent assault on a person under 16 years of age, with the jury finding the appellant guilty of two counts, not guilty of five counts, and failing to agree on one count. The appeal against the conviction centred on the sufficiency of the evidence, specifically whether the jury's verdicts were unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence. The court examined the criteria required for a conviction appeal to succeed, considering the corroborative evidence supporting the complainant, as well as the difficulties inherent in the complainant's evidence. The court concluded that the jury's verdicts were reasonable and supported by the evidence, dismissing the conviction appeal. Regarding the sentence appeal, the court evaluated whether the sentencing judge erred in finding "substantial" harm suffered by the complainant without medical evidence, assessing the level of criminality, and determining the appropriateness of the sentence length and accumulation. The court found no demonstrated error in the sentencing judge's decision, affirming the sentence.