R v G (CA414/03)

- **Parties, Dispute, and Court:**
The case, R v G (CA414/03), involves the appellant, G, who was convicted in the District Court of indecent assault against his daughter, who was under 12 years of age at the time of the alleged offence. The appellant appeals against his conviction and subsequent sentencing, which included 18 months imprisonment with leave to apply for home detention. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard the appeal on 22 September 2004, with the judgment delivered on 26 October 2004.

- **Legal Issues:**
The appellant's appeal was based on three grounds: (a) the verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence; (b) the conduct of the prosecutor unfairly prejudiced the appellant and led to a miscarriage of justice; and (c) there was a failure to disclose that the complainant was undergoing ongoing counselling, which led to a miscarriage of justice. The court also raised concerns about the admissibility of evidence regarding the complainant's behaviour, which was presented to support her allegations.

- **Court's Reasoning and Outcome:**
The Court of Appeal found that the evidence of the complainant's behaviour was inadmissible and prejudicial, as it did not have probative value and was likely to mislead the jury. The court emphasized that expert evidence is necessary to interpret such behaviour correctly, and without it, the jury was placed in an unfair position. The admission of this evidence led to a real risk of a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the court noted the prosecutor's breach of section 366 of the Crimes Act by commenting on the appellant's failure to give evidence, and the use of emotive and unwarranted language in the closing address. Although these issues were unsatisfactory, the court concluded that the inadmissibility of the behaviour evidence alone justified allowing the appeal. The appeal was allowed, the conviction was quashed, and a re-trial was ordered, leaving the decision on whether to proceed with a new trial to the Crown.

- **Final Orders:**
The Court of Appeal ordered the conviction to be quashed and a re-trial to be held, leaving the decision on whether to proceed with a new trial to the Crown. This decision was made to address the real risk of a miscarriage of justice due to the inadmissible and prejudicial evidence presented during the trial.