R v A (CA299/03)

The appellant, a father, was convicted by a jury in the District Court at Christchurch of sexually abusing his two daughters, O and T. T testified in support of the Crown case, but O testified that her father had not sexually abused her. The appellant's convictions concerning O were based on a confession he made but later recanted. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand was required to decide whether the convictions were unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. The court found that the verdicts of guilty in relation to O were unreasonable and quashed those convictions. The court found that the convictions in relation to T were also unsafe due to the inadequate directions given to the jury by the trial judge. The court ordered a retrial only on the counts concerning T.