Case: Mark Pepperman

Mark Pepperman was a family doctor who was convicted of sexually assaulting two women, one of whom claimed he had kissed her bare breasts. The conviction was based on the testimony of the two complainants. On appeal, major inconsistencies in the testimony of the second complainant were highlighted and it was found that these inconsistencies had not been given sufficient mention by the trial judge. This meant the jury’s deliberations were without the benefit of the judge mentioning these “crucial aspects” of the defence case, and the conviction was quashed. The court declined to order a retrial, saying it would be very difficult for prosecutors to obtain a conviction were the judge to give the proper direction about these contraditions.