R v A (CA508/04)

The case involves an appeal against the conviction and sentence of the appellant, A, who was found guilty of sexual violation by rape in the District Court at Manukau. A was sentenced to seven years imprisonment. The appeal is against both the conviction and the sentence. The background of the case involves A's relationship with a woman, with whom he had two children, including the victim, X, who was three years old at the time of the alleged offence. The Crown case was that A had sexual contact with X, whereby his penis penetrated her genitalia, resulting in an infection from the sexually transmitted disease gonorrhoea. A denied any sexual involvement with X, and claimed that the only opportunity for the infection to be passed between them was when they were bathing together.

The legal issues the court was required to decide were: (i) whether the fresh evidence from Y, who also experienced symptoms of gonorrhoea, was sufficiently fresh, credible, and cogent to qualify for admission; (ii) whether the trial Judge handled certain requests by the jury as to a review of the video tape evidence properly; and (iii) whether the sentence actually imposed on A was manifestly excessive.

The court's reasoning and outcome were as follows: (i) The fresh evidence from Y was considered to be fresh and credible, but it had no relevant legal force in this case. The court found no miscarriage of justice in this regard. (ii) The court found that the trial Judge had the discretion to decide how to handle the jury's request to review the video tape evidence. The Judge's decision to offer the jury the option of seeing all of the video footage or referring back to the transcript was found to be appropriate, and there was no miscarriage of justice in this regard. (iii) The court found that the sentence imposed on A was not excessive, and the sentence appeal was dismissed.

Final orders: The appeals against conviction and sentence are dismissed.