R v Prattley CA42/04

The appeal before the Court was brought by the appellant, Lindsay Stephen Prattley, who was convicted on one charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and five charges of indecent assault following a trial in the District Court. Prattley was subsequently sentenced to four and a half years imprisonment. The appeal against the conviction was based on three criticisms of the summing up by the trial judge, namely: a direction concerning complaint evidence was materially wrong, the trial judge failed to adequately direct on the effect of rejecting the defence's submissions that the complainant had a motive to lie, and no direction was given concerning opinions expressed by the police officer who interviewed Prattley when a direction to disregard such opinions was required. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the cumulative effect of the misdirections and non-direction gave rise to an unacceptable risk of a miscarriage of justice.

The Court considered each of the alleged misdirections and non-directions in turn. In relation to the complaint evidence, the Court held that the summing up did not contain any misdirection as the requirements of s23AC of the Evidence Act 1908 and the need for balance were appropriately struck. The Court also held that the trial judge adequately directed on the issue of motive to lie, and that there was no authority for the proposition that if an accused asserts that a complainant had a motive to lie, the jury should be warned that its rejection of that proposition does not affect the fundamental onus of proof resting on the Crown. Finally, the Court found that no direction was called for in relation to the opinion evidence at interview as the case was far removed from the circumstances in both Hunt and Lawton.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed as the grounds of appeal alleging misdirection and non-direction were not made out.