R v Burns CA55/06

The case of R v Burns CA55/06 was heard in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The appellant, Ross Ferguson Burns, was convicted in the District Court at Hamilton on one count of indecent assault of a girl under the age of 12 years. The appeal against this conviction was dismissed. The legal issues the court needed to decide were whether the verdict was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence and if the guilty verdict was inconsistent with the acquittal on the first count, making it unreasonable and the conviction unsafe. The court's reasoning was that there was sufficient evidential foundation for the jury to convict on the separate count of indecent assault. The court concluded that the appeal against conviction was dismissed because the different verdicts were not inconsistent, and there was a rational explanation for them.

The court held that there was no reason why credibility must be static and it is not necessarily illogical for a jury to be convinced by a witness on one count but not on another. The jury had the opportunity to conclude that the "game playing" was a pretext for prurient contact with the complainant. The court concluded that it is not open for the Court of Appeal to speculate on the jury's reasoning process where there was sufficient evidential foundation for it to convict on the separate count. Therefore, the Court of Appeal could not interfere with a jury's verdict unless it was unsafe, so that there arises a risk of a miscarriage of justice.