Booth v The King

The applicant, Booth, has appealed against his conviction by a jury on ten of thirty-four charges of sexual offences involving two complainants. The trial judge convicted Booth of ten charges and acquitted him of the remaining charges. The Supreme Court of Victoria considered whether the jury’s verdicts of guilt were inconsistent with the acquittals, particularly where the charged offences were closely linked in time as part of the same incident. The court examined whether the acquittals meant that the jury rejected the complainant's credibility and whether the verdicts of guilt could be explained by differences in the quality of evidence or corroboration, especially concerning the complainant's age, consent, and belief in consent.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the jury's verdicts were inconsistent, given the acquittals on charges that were closely linked in time. The court considered whether the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence rendered the verdicts unreasonable. The court reasoned that the discrepancies could be attributed to the passage of more than 30 years since the offending, and the complainant's evidence was not so improbable that it could not be accepted by a reasonable jury. The court found that the evidence supporting each charge differed in quality or was corroborated, particularly on issues of the complainant's age, consent, and belief in consent.

The Supreme Court of Victoria held that the jury's verdicts were not unreasonable and dismissed the appeal. The court found that the discrepancies in the complainant's evidence were attributable to the passage of time and did not render the verdicts unreasonable. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings of guilt on the ten charges and rejected the argument that the acquittals indicated a rejection of the complainant's credibility. The court found that the verdicts of guilt were explicable on the basis that the evidence supporting each charge differed in quality or was corroborated. The appeal was dismissed, and the original convictions were upheld.