Multiple errors at trial — including improper cross-examination putting to the accused that complainants were lying, inadequate directions following a jury question about why a complainant would fabricate allegations, absence of a propensity warning with multiple complainants, an inadequate good character direction, and mislabelling sexual penetration of a child under 16 as 'rape' — may individually be insufficient to warrant allowing an appeal but cumulatively amount to a miscarriage of justice under s 568(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). Taking part in an act of sexual penetration with a child under 16 is a significantly different offence from rape, with different sections, different maximum penalties (10 years versus 25 years), and different social stigma.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.