Thomson v R

Thomson appealed against his conviction for sexual offences. The appeal concerned whether the verdicts of the jury were unsafe and unsatisfactory, specifically in light of arguments that the complainant's evidence was demonstrably unreliable and that her memory had been demonstrably contaminated.

The Court of Criminal Appeal was required to determine whether the evidence presented at trial was such that no reasonable jury, properly instructed, could have reached the verdicts returned. This involved a close examination of the complainant's testimony and any factors that might have affected its reliability or the integrity of her memory.

The Court considered the principles governing appeals against conviction based on the safety and satisfactoriness of verdicts. It analysed the evidence in detail, assessing the grounds of appeal relating to the complainant's reliability and the alleged contamination of her memory. The Court ultimately found that the verdicts were not unsafe or unsatisfactory and dismissed the appeal against conviction.

The Court also considered a separate appeal by the Crown against the sentences imposed. The Crown argued that the sentences were manifestly inadequate and that the primary judge had erred in relation to the maximum penalty applicable. The Court allowed the Crown's appeal in part, finding that the sentences were indeed inadequate, and remitted the matter to the primary judge for re-sentencing.