Ground 2
The learned trial Judge erred in not giving any, alternatively, appropriate directions to the jury as to the proper use they could make of evidence of uncharged sexual acts after the period referred to in Count 1, which resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
Ground 3
The learned trial Judge erred in not giving any, alternatively, appropriate directions to the jury as to the proper use they could make of evidence of alleged sexual acts during the period referred to in Count 1 other than the five acts particularised by the Crown, which resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
Ground 4
The learned trial judge erred in failing to give the jury appropriate warnings in terms of the decision of the High Court in Longman v The Queen [1989] HCA 60; (1989) 168 CLR 79, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
Ground 5
The learned Judge erred in not directing or adequately directing the jury that they were required to consider each of Counts 1 and 2 on the indictment and the evidence relating to each count separately and to consider each count only by reference to the evidence that applied to it ('a separate consideration warning'), which resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
Ground 6
The learned trial Judge erred in not giving the jury an appropriate warning or direction concerning the dangers of propensity reasoning, and in particular, in not directing the jury that if they found the Applicant guilty on Count 2, they could not use that finding to reason that he was the kind of person likely to commit the acts the subject of Count 1, and a miscarriage of justice thereby occurred.
Ground 7
The learned trial Judge erred in not directing the jury adequately of the need, before convicting the appellant on Count 1, not only to be in unanimous agreement that the appellant had done at least three acts on at least three different days in relation to the complainant that would constitute a prescribed offence, but also to be unanimously agreed that the same three occasions had been proved beyond reasonable doubt, and a miscarriage of justice thereby occurred.
Ground 8
The learned trial Judge erred in admitting the evidence of what the complainant allegedly said to the Crown witness Donna Endersby as evidence of recent complaint, alternatively, in not giving the jury appropriate directions as to the proper use of that evidence, and a miscarriage of justice thereby occurred.
Particulars
The complaint was not shown to relate to any of the acts particularised by the Crown in evidence, or to any specific incident at all. Further, the evidence did not establish that the complaint was made sufficiently close in time to a sexual act to enable it to be treated as a recent complaint.
Count 2
Ground 1
The learned trial Judge erred in not giving appropriate directions to the jury as to the proper use they could make of evidence of uncharged sexual acts alleged to have occurred prior to the offence alleged in Count 2, which resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
Ground 2
The learned trial Judge erred in not giving appropriate directions to the jury as to the proper use they could make of evidence of sexual acts alleged to have occurred during the period specified in Count 1, which resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
Ground 3
The learned Judge erred in not directing or adequately directing the jury that they were required to consider each of Counts 1 and 2 on the indictment and the evidence relating to each count separately and to consider each count only by reference to the evidence that applied to it ('a separate consideration warning'), which resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
Ground 4
The learned trial Judge erred in not giving the jury an appropriate warning or direction concerning the dangers of propensity reasoning, and in particular, in not directing the jury that if they found the Applicant guilty on Count 1, they could not use that finding to reason that he was the kind of person likely to commit the act the subject of Count 2, and a miscarriage of justice thereby occurred."