Mark Huckabone

Youth criminal appeal from convictions for historical sexual offences following a trial under youth legislation.

The appellant argued the trial judge gave inadequate reasons, reversed the onus, applied an improper standard to defence evidence, and improperly relied on cross-count similar fact reasoning.

The court held the reasons, read functionally and contextually, were sufficient; the trial judge properly applied the W.(D.) framework and did not reverse the burden of proof.

The court further held that, had the issue been squarely raised, the complainants' evidence would inevitably have been admissible across counts given the striking similarities and independent disclosure.

Appeal dismissed.

The Licensee brought a motion for a stay of proceedings, alleging that the exclusion of a party from a mid-hearing conference and the discussion of improper witness conduct created a reasonable apprehension of bias and violated the principles of natural justice.

The Board denied the motion, finding that the Licensee's legal counsel was present during the conference, no evidence was presented, and the panel did not pre-judge the matter.

The Board noted that administrative tribunals do not operate in a criminal court environment and that reminding witnesses not to discuss testimony is a routine procedure.

A pre-hearing teleconference was held regarding a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of Shots Sports Tap & Grill.

The Board ordered both the Licensee and the Registrar to provide mutual disclosure, including witness lists and evidence summaries, 21 days prior to the scheduled hearing date.