A man appealed his convictions for assaulting and sexually assaulting his ex-partner. He claimed his lawyer didn't have enough time to prepare because of late evidence. The court disagreed, saying the lawyer did a good job and the convictions were fair, even though the lawyer might have done things differently. The appeal failed.
Key Facts
- •David Stokoe was convicted of rape, assault by penetration, and two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
- •The complainant was his former partner, with whom he had a child.
- •The offences spanned several years and involved various incidents of physical and sexual violence.
- •The defence argued inconsistencies in the complainant's accounts and the delay in reporting the incidents.
- •The prosecution relied on the complainant's evidence, injuries, medical reports, and the appellant's previous convictions for violence.
- •The defence received a large volume of messages shortly before trial, leading to concerns about adequate preparation time.
- •The appeal focused on whether defence counsel had sufficient time to prepare and effectively cross-examine the complainant.
Legal Principles
Reporting restrictions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to protect the identity of victims of sexual offences.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court found no merit in the appellant's claim that his defence counsel lacked sufficient time to prepare or failed to adequately represent him. The court considered the defence counsel's response to criticisms, the availability of evidence during the trial, and the fact that the appellant was acquitted of three charges. The cumulative effect of the criticisms did not render the convictions unsafe.