Where defence counsel's cross-examination of complainants is perfunctory and the closing address fails to highlight material inconsistencies in the evidence — particularly evidence the Crown concedes is not readily reconcilable — the cumulative effect may deprive the accused of a fair trial warranting appellate intervention, even if a rational forensic decision might explain the cross-examination approach in isolation. The repeal of s 78 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) by the Criminal Legislation Amendment (Child Sexual Abuse) Act 2018 (NSW) operates retrospectively, but the repeal of s 78T does not. Where the Crown makes time an essential ingredient of a count by the way it conducts the trial, and the evidence does not exclude a reasonable doubt that the offending occurred outside the date range averred, the verdict is unreasonable.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.