TB v R

In the case of TB v R, the applicant, TB, appealed against both his conviction and sentence on charges related to child sexual assault offences. The applicant was convicted on three counts of sexual offences against children. The appeal contested the conviction on the grounds that the jury's verdicts were unreasonable due to conflicts in the evidence regarding peripheral matters and acquittals on other counts stemming from uncertainties about the date of the offence. The appeal also challenged the probative value of tendency evidence when the conduct was separated by a significant period of time, as well as the retrospective use of such evidence. Additionally, the appeal questioned whether the primary judge provided an adequate direction concerning the use of tendency evidence in accordance with the decision in R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82. The applicant further argued that the trial miscarried because the cross-examination did not comply with section 44(3) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). Regarding the sentence, the appeal claimed that the sentencing judge's assessment of the objective seriousness of the offending was exaggerated.

The court addressed the legal issues by examining the consistency and reasonableness of the jury's verdicts in light of the evidence presented, considering the conflicts and acquittals on other counts. It assessed the probative value of the tendency evidence, particularly given the substantial time gap between the relevant conduct and the offences. The court also evaluated whether the trial judge's direction on the use of tendency evidence was adequate and whether the trial complied with statutory requirements. Furthermore, the court scrutinised the sentencing assessment to determine if it was manifestly excessive. In evaluating these issues, the court applied principles of criminal law and evidence, considering both the legal framework and the specifics of the case.