R v W

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the appellant, W, was convicted of indecently assaulting his daughter, L, and his granddaughters, E and C, as well as raping L. He was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment and appealed against his conviction, arguing that there should have been separate trials and certain evidence was wrongly admitted. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no miscarriage of justice in the trial.

The legal issues included whether similar fact evidence should have been admitted, whether evidence of recent complaint was properly admitted, whether the admission of hearsay evidence constituted a miscarriage of justice, and whether a corroboration warning was necessary.

The Court of Appeal held that the evidence of all three complainants was relevant and admissible as similar fact evidence, as there were sufficient similarities in the nature of the offences and the circumstances in which they occurred. The Court also found that the evidence of recent complaint was properly admitted, as the delay in reporting the offences was reasonable given the age of the complainants and the nature of the abuse. The admission of hearsay evidence was held not to have caused a miscarriage of justice, as the evidence was not led to prove the truth of the matters asserted but rather to provide context for the complainants' actions. Finally, the Court held that the trial judge's direction to the jury regarding the effect of delay on the reliability of the complainant's evidence was adequate, and no miscarriage of justice arose from the decision not to give a corroboration warning.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding no miscarriage of justice in the trial.