DJK v Tasmania

The appellant, DJK, was convicted of rape following a trial in Tasmania. The Crown had also charged DJK with aggravated sexual assault in relation to a separate incident. The jury acquitted DJK of the aggravated sexual assault charge but convicted him of rape. DJK appealed his conviction for rape to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the jury's verdicts were inconsistent, thereby vitiating the conviction for rape. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the acquittal on the aggravated sexual assault charge, when viewed alongside the conviction for rape, demonstrated that the jury had failed to properly apply the law or had reached a verdict that was logically impossible.

The Full Court dismissed the appeal. Their Honours reasoned that the two offences, while both sexual assaults, involved different elements and were alleged to have occurred at different times. The evidence presented at trial was also distinct for each charge. The Court found that the jury could have reasonably concluded that the evidence supporting the rape charge was stronger than the evidence supporting the aggravated sexual assault charge, leading to different verdicts without necessarily indicating an error in their deliberations. The principle applied was that inconsistent verdicts are only grounds for appeal if they are so illogical as to be incapable of being explained by the jury’s proper application of the law to the evidence presented.