R v A (CA100/03)

In the case of R v A (CA100/03), the appellant was convicted in the Auckland High Court of sexual and physical abuse involving several family members, including his stepdaughter, R. He was sentenced to 17 years imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of ten years. The appellant appealed against his convictions for sexual offences against R and the severity of his sentence. The legal issues before the Court of Appeal of New Zealand were whether there were radical errors in the conduct of the defence case, leading to a miscarriage of justice, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The Court found that there was no radical error in the conduct of the defence case. The trial counsel's cross-examination of R was deemed appropriate in the circumstances, as it established enough material to make a strong submission to the jury regarding inconsistencies in R's evidence. The Court also found that the trial Judge's comments during summing-up did not mislead the jury to the extent that a miscarriage of justice occurred. Regarding the sentence, the Court held that the Judge's sentencing was based on a factually incorrect assumption, leading to an excessive sentence. Consequently, the total sentence was reduced to 15 years imprisonment, with a minimum term of eight and a half years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction but allowed the appeal against sentence. The total sentence of 17 years imposed on the rape and sexual violation charges was quashed, and a new sentence of 15 years was imposed, with 11 years for the eight counts of sexual violation by rape and four years for the seven charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection. The sentences for these two sets of offences would be cumulative, resulting in a total of 15 years imprisonment. All other sentences remained undisturbed.