Sudath v The Queen

Sudath was convicted by a jury of two counts of common assault and one count of sexual assault, each involving the complainant. The respondent, The Queen, appealed against both the conviction and the sentence. The appeal raised several issues, including whether the judge had erred in allowing the complainant to give evidence under alternative arrangements, whether the judge should have directed the jury on circumstantial evidence, whether the verdict was unreasonable in the circumstances, and whether fresh evidence obtained after the proceedings suggested a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the appeal addressed whether the sentence was excessive and whether the accumulation of sentences was inappropriate.

The court examined the issues sequentially, starting with the judge's decision to permit the complainant to give evidence under alternative arrangements. It was determined that the judge had acted within their discretion in making this decision, as it was deemed to be in the best interests of the complainant. The court also found that the judge had not erred in declining to give a direction on circumstantial evidence, as the evidence was not purely circumstantial but rather a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence. The jury's verdict was deemed reasonable given the evidence presented, and the fresh evidence obtained after the proceedings did not suggest a miscarriage of justice. The court further examined the sentence imposed, determining that while the sentence for the common assault count was at the higher end of the scale, it was not excessive given the circumstances of the case. The accumulation of sentences was also deemed appropriate.

Ultimately, the appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the appeal against sentence was allowed in part. The sentence for the common assault count was reduced, and the appellant's sentence was recalculated to reflect the new total.