R v O CA9/04

The appellant was convicted by a jury in the District Court of multiple sexual offences against his stepdaughter, who was around 10 years old at the time. The offences included sexual violation by digital penetration and inducing a child to perform indecent acts. The appellant was sentenced to five years imprisonment for each count, to be served concurrently. The appellant appealed against both his conviction and sentence. The primary grounds of appeal against conviction were that the trial Judge did not read the entire transcript of the complainant's evidence after the jury requested a replay of the evidential videotape, that there was insufficient evidence of penetration of the genitalia, and that the summing up was unfairly weighted against the appellant. The appeal against sentence argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal found that the trial Judge's decision to replay the videotape, but not read the transcript, was not unfair as the jury had the transcript available for their own review. The Court was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence of penetration of the genitalia based on the child's descriptions and demonstrations, and that the summing up was fair. While the sentence was considered stern, the Court found it was not manifestly excessive given the nature and circumstances of the offences. The appeals against conviction and sentence were therefore dismissed.