R v X (CA352/07)

In the case of R v X, the appellant was convicted of indecently assaulting a four-year-old girl, Y, over a period of time. The conviction was based entirely on the uncorroborated testimony of Y. The Court of Appeal was asked to decide whether the conviction was safe, given the inconsistencies in Y's evidence. The appellant argued that Y's evidence was so contradictory that no reasonable jury could have convicted him, and that the trial judge should have directed the jury to acquit him or discharged him under s 347 of the Crimes Act 1961.

The Court of Appeal found that Y's evidence was indeed contradictory and that the trial judge's handling of the case contributed to the unsafe nature of the conviction. The judge's questioning of Y during re-examination was found to have reinforced her original account, and the judge's directions to the jury did not sufficiently emphasize the importance of Y's retractions and the impact they had on the reliability of her complaint. The Court concluded that the conviction was unsafe and allowed the appeal, quashing the conviction and sentence and directing a fresh trial.

The Court emphasized that Y's complaint was worthy of a jury's consideration and that a retrial should only occur if Y could sensibly and fairly be asked to give evidence again. The appellant's status, whether he should remain in custody or be granted bail, was to be decided in the District Court.