BCM v R [2013] HCA 48

In the case of BCM v R [2013] HCA 48, the High Court has unanimously dismissed an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland's Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal had upheld the conviction of the appellant, BCM, on two counts of unlawfully and indecently dealing with a child under 12 in his care, contrary to s 210 of Queensland's Criminal Code Act 1899.

BCM is the step-grandfather of the complainant, E, who was six years old at the time of the offences. Three offences were alleged to have occurred while E was staying overnight at the appellant's house. She was nine years old when she reported two of the incidents to her mother. Eleven months later, she reported a third incident that had occurred at the same time. 

In the Queensland District Court, the appellant was convicted of the first two counts, with the jury unable to reach a verdict regarding the third count. E was 10 years old at the time of the trial, and there were some inconsistencies in her evidence.

BCM appealed to the Court of Appeal on the ground that the jury's verdicts were unreasonable, or could not be supported having regard to the evidence. This appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed by special leave to the High Court, arguing that the Court of Appeal failed to assess the evidence given at trial and did not give adequate reasons for its conclusion that the verdicts were supported by evidence. 

The High Court has today unanimously dismissed that appeal. It found that the Court of Appeal's reasons did not sufficiently disclose its assessment of the capacity of the evidence to support the verdict against the appellant. The High Court therefore undertook its own assessment of the evidence before the jury, and concluded that the verdicts were not unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. The inconsistencies present in E's evidence could be explained by her young age at the time of the offences, and the time frame between the offences, her report to police, and the trial. The criticisms of E's evidence put by the appellant could not lead to a conclusion that it was not open to the jury to convict him. 

TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.