Wade (a pseudonym) v The Queen

The appellant, Wade, was convicted of one count of indecent act with a child under 16 years, against a complainant who was his first cousin. The offending occurred when the complainant was between 7 and 10 years of age, and the appellant was between 15 and 18 years of age. Wade appealed against his conviction to the court of criminal appeal, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable and that the jury should have had a doubt about the complainant's veracity and reliability. The central issue in this appeal was whether the jury was bound to have a doubt about the complainant's credibility, given their familial relationship and the age difference between the parties.

The court found that the relationship between the complainant and the appellant, being first cousins, was a significant factor that warranted consideration in assessing the reliability of the complainant's evidence. The court held that the jury should have had a doubt about the complainant's veracity and reliability due to the familial relationship and the age difference between the parties. Additionally, the court found that the verdicts were inconsistent and irreconcilable, leading to the conclusion that the appeal should be allowed. The court applied the principles set out in MacKenzie v The Queen, which held that when the evidence is susceptible to more than one conclusion, the jury should have had a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused.

As a result of the appeal, the court allowed the appeal and entered a judgment of acquittal in relation to the conviction. The court found that the evidence was not sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the jury should have had a doubt about the complainant's credibility. The court's decision was based on the principles of criminal law and the need to ensure that a person is not convicted of a crime unless their guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed.