Robbins (a pseudonym) v The Queen

Robbins (a pseudonym) appealed against his conviction and sentence for six counts of sexual penetration of a child under 16 and two counts of attempted sexual penetration of a child under 16. The case was heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal. The primary issue was whether the trial judge had erred in not directing the jury on the concept of forensic disadvantage due to a delay in the victim's complaint, and if the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive. The court also considered whether the trial judge had erred in their approach to sentencing for multiple offences.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had not erred in declining to give a forensic disadvantage direction to the jury. The delay in the victim's complaint did not result in a significant forensic disadvantage. The court held that the jury was properly directed and that the loss of chance to obtain forensic evidence or explore the circumstances of the offending did not warrant a direction to the jury. The court found no substantial miscarriage of justice and dismissed the appeal. The reasoning was consistent with precedents such as Longman v The Queen and Mulligan (a Pseudonym) v The Queen, distinguishing it from cases like Greensill v The Queen and Jurj v The Queen.

The court also examined the sentences imposed, which amounted to a total effective sentence of nine years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years. The appeal against the sentences was dismissed as they were not manifestly excessive. The court found that the trial judge had properly considered exceptional circumstances and that the sentences were appropriate. The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's approach to sentencing for multiple offences. The appeal against the sentence was dismissed.