Dadley v R

Dadley was convicted by a jury of two counts of sexual assault without consent and one count of indecent assault. He appealed against his conviction to the Court of Appeal, contending that the guilty verdicts on two counts were inconsistent with his acquittal on one count of sexual intercourse without consent. He also argued that the verdicts were unreasonable, and could not be supported having regard to the whole of the evidence. Dadley claimed that the complainant's assessed state of intoxication and the implausibility in aspects of her account should have caused a doubt in the mind of the jury as to whether or not he was guilty. He submitted that certain DNA evidence appeared to have been critical to the jury's returning of a guilty verdict against him, but that such DNA evidence was more consistent with a secondary transfer as a result of the complainant having picked up his DNA in relevantly innocuous circumstances.

The Court of Appeal considered the arguments made by Dadley and examined the evidence presented to the jury. The Court found that the guilty verdicts on two counts were indeed inconsistent with his acquittal on one count of sexual intercourse without consent, and that the acquittal was explicable only by doubts the jury must have held as to the complainant’s credibility. The Court also found that the verdicts were unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the whole of the evidence. The Court concluded that the complainant’s assessed state of intoxication and the implausibility in aspects of her account should have caused a doubt in the mind of the jury as to whether or not Dadley was guilty. The Court further found that the DNA evidence was more consistent with a secondary transfer, and could not be relied upon to support the guilty verdicts.

Having considered all the evidence and arguments, the Court of Appeal quashed Dadley's convictions and ordered a retrial. The Court found that the jury's verdicts were unreasonable, and could not be supported having regard to the whole of the evidence. The Court also found that the guilty verdicts on two counts were inconsistent with Dadley's acquittal on one count of sexual intercourse without consent, and that the acquittal was explicable only by doubts the jury must have held as to the complainant’s credibility. The Court concluded that Dadley was entitled to a retrial, and quashed his convictions accordingly.