RW v R

The appeal by RW was heard in the High Court against a conviction for persistent sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen years. The appellant, RW, was convicted of offences under section 66EA of the Crimes Act 1900 (Qld), which pertains to the offence of sexual intercourse with a child under sixteen. The appeal was predicated on the argument that the verdict of guilty was unreasonable, and that the trial judge erred in not directing the jury regarding the requirement for an "unlawful sexual relationship" in the s 66EA offence.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the trial judge had failed to properly direct the jury on an essential element of the offence of persistent sexual abuse of a child under sixteen years of age. Specifically, the appellant's argument was that the jury should have been directed that for a conviction to be made, there must be an "unlawful sexual relationship" between the accused and the child victim, rather than merely the act of sexual intercourse. The appellant contended that the absence of such a direction rendered the verdict unreasonable.

The High Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the trial judge had not erred in the direction given to the jury. The Court found that the jury had been properly directed on the elements of the offence, including the requirement that there be an "unlawful sexual relationship". The Court reasoned that the direction given by the trial judge was sufficient to ensure that the jury understood that the offence required more than just the act of sexual intercourse, but also involved an element of unlawfulness in the relationship. Consequently, the Court concluded that the verdict of guilty was not unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction upheld. The Court did not make any specific orders beyond the dismissal of the appeal.