R v A (CA305/07)

The appeal in CA305/07 was brought by A, who had been convicted by a jury of sexual violation by rape. The conviction was appealed on the basis that the verdict was unreasonable or unable to be supported having regard to the evidence. The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The complainant, Z, was the step-daughter of A’s brother, Y, and was 11 or 12 years old at the time of the offence. Z alleged that A had raped her on 18 December 2005, when her parents were away, and that he had raped her on a number of occasions between 5 January 2004 and 12 July 2005. A was acquitted of the latter count. Z became pregnant sometime during the period of abuse, but DNA tests established that the father of the child was Y, not A. The appeal was based on the assertion that the jury should have had reasonable doubt as to A’s guilt on one or more of three grounds. The first was that Z may have been confused as to the identity of the offender. The second was that Z was unable to remember some details of the offence on which A was convicted. The third was that Z’s evidence should not have been accepted because of family pressure, beatings from her mother, and pity for Y. The Court found that the jury had been properly directed as to its role in assessing the credibility of Z’s evidence, and that there were no proper grounds for interfering with its assessment. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.