The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal against a total effective sentence of 12 years and 6 months' imprisonment (NPP 8 years and 6 months) for multiple child sexual offences. On Ground 1, the Court held that a complainant's qualifying language ('I don't remember what he said, but I think he said...') did not constitute equivocation precluding a beyond-reasonable-doubt finding, but rather reflected the child's lack of self-confidence in recalling traumatic events; the Court also held there was no breach of procedural fairness where the impugned factual finding (manipulative comment) was an integral part of the complainant's narrative accepted by the jury verdict and the applicant had not challenged the factual basis at the plea. On Ground 2, the Court held the individual sentences and cumulation orders were not manifestly excessive, emphasising that the absence of certain aggravating features does not diminish the seriousness of what actually occurred, and that for serious sexual offenders the presumption of cumulation under s 6E requires totality to give way to some degree.
The full text is available to signed-in members.