R v Cox CA204/05

The appellant, Martin Cox, was convicted in the District Court of one count of assault with intent to commit sexual violation and one count of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection. The convictions were appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal against conviction but allowed the appeal against sentence. Cox was sentenced to five years and six months in prison for his crimes, a sentence that the Court of Appeal found to be manifestly excessive. Cox was resentenced to four years imprisonment.

The central issue in the appeal against conviction was whether there was a miscarriage of justice. The appellant argued that the trial was unfair due to the prosecutor's cross-examination and the Judge's direction on the standard of proof. The Court found that while the prosecutor's cross-examination was inappropriate and the Judge's direction was incorrect, these issues did not combine to cause a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal against sentence focused on whether the District Court Judge had set an appropriate starting point for the sentence. The Court of Appeal found that the Judge had wrongly characterized some aspects of the case as aggravating factors and had failed to properly consider mitigating factors. The Court of Appeal reduced the sentence to four years imprisonment, which it found to be appropriate given the circumstances of the case.