R v S (CA484/03)

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the case of CA 484/03, The Queen versus S, was heard on 17 June 2004. The appellant, found guilty of indecently assaulting his 11-year-old daughter, appeals both his conviction and the sentence of two and a half years imprisonment. The appellant's appeal against conviction hinges on the contention that the trial judge misdirected the jury. The appeal against sentence argues that the sentence is manifestly excessive. The Court was required to determine whether the trial judge's comments during summing-up to the jury constituted a misdirection and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The Court found that while the trial judge's comments did not mirror the exact words used by the prosecutor, they did encapsulate the essence of the Crown's argument. The Court concluded that the jury was not misled by the trial judge's comments, as there was no basis to suggest that the jury was inclined to convict an innocent man to protect the career of a police officer. The Court also rejected the argument that the jury's verdict indicated a compromise to save the detective's career, stating that the jury was properly directed to consider each count separately. Regarding the sentence, the Court found that the trial judge considered all relevant factors and that the sentence was within the appropriate range, leading to the dismissal of the appeal against sentence.

The appeals against both conviction and sentence are dismissed. The appellant's conviction and sentence stand as originally determined by the trial court.