DH v R

The appeal in DH v R was brought by the appellant, DH, against a conviction and sentence for sexual offending against a child. The High Court was asked to consider whether the trial judge made errors in directions to the jury regarding the admissibility and scope of expert evidence, memory, and good character evidence. The High Court also considered whether the trial judge's comments during the summing up were prejudicial.

The legal issues before the Court included whether the trial judge should have provided a direction to the jury regarding the expert evidence, whether the trial judge's direction on memory was appropriate, and whether the judge's comment about "dealing with dirty laundry" was prejudicial and should not have been made. The Court was also required to consider the cumulative effect of any errors made by the trial judge.

The Court found that while the trial judge could have given a more succinct direction regarding the expert evidence, any error was not material given the nature of the defence. The Court held that the trial judge's direction on memory was not helpful in this case, as the defence focused on the fabrication of allegations rather than the accuracy of the complainant's memory. The Court held that the "dirty laundry" remark was gratuitous and should not have been made, but it did not reflect on the appellant and did not have a prejudicial effect on the outcome of the trial. The Court found no cumulative effect of the errors that would warrant a new trial.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant were upheld.