R v A (CA432/03)

In the appeal case of R v A (CA432/03), the appellant, who is the uncle of the victim, was convicted on three counts of sexually violating and raping his ten-year-old niece between January 2001 and June 2002. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand on 20 May 2004, with Wild J, O'Regan J, and Doogue J presiding. The appeal invoked Section 385 of the Crimes Act 1961, which states that an appeal against conviction can be allowed if the Court of Appeal is of the opinion that the verdict of the jury should be set aside on the ground that it is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.

The appellant argued that the evidence presented at the trial was flawed, and that a jury acting reasonably must have entertained a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. The appeal focused on three aspects of the evidence, including the timing of the alleged rapes, the complainant's account of the events, and the medical evidence presented. Additionally, the appellant raised concerns about a question asked by the jury during their deliberations and the judge's response.

The Court of Appeal found that the jury, acting reasonably, did not have to entertain a reasonable doubt as to the appellant's guilt. The court noted that the complainant's evidence was vague from the outset, and that the jury was entitled to accept part of her evidence and reject other parts. The court also found that the jury's question and the judge's response did not indicate that the jury was heading down a path of failing to consider all the evidence before the court. The court held that the verdicts reached by the jury were open to them and dismissed the appeal.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal upheld the appellant's convictions on all three counts of sexually violating and raping his niece. The court found that the evidence presented at the trial, along with the judge's summing up, was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts. The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were to stand.