Stevenson v R

The applicant, Stevenson, appealed against his conviction and sentence for aggravated indecent assault and sexual touching of a child between the ages of 10 and 16 years. The appeal was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary ground of appeal was that a miscarriage of justice occurred as the trial judge did not remind the jury of the inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence following the replay of the JIRT interview during jury deliberations. This ground was not raised by defence counsel at the trial. Additionally, Stevenson appealed against the severity of his aggregate sentence, asserting that it was manifestly excessive due to allegedly excessive indicative sentences.

The Court of Criminal Appeal considered whether it should view the pre-recorded JIRT interview to determine the ground of appeal. The Court held that there was no forensic purpose for it to view the interview, as the ground of appeal related to the trial judge’s failure to remind the jury of inconsistencies, not the content of the interview itself. Consequently, the leave to rely on this ground was refused. Regarding the sentence, the Court acknowledged that aspects of the indicative sentences resulted in a manifestly excessive aggregate sentence. However, the Court found that the absence of a standard non-parole period for one of the offences did not render the aggregate sentence manifestly excessive. The applicant was resentenced by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld the conviction but varied the sentence. The applicant's sentence was reduced, taking into account the manifestly excessive nature of the aggregate sentence. The Court did not find a miscarriage of justice in the trial judge’s conduct regarding the JIRT interview, and the sentence was adjusted to reflect the appropriate severity of the offences committed.