FN v The Queen

The applicant, FN, appealed against his conviction by a jury for sexual intercourse without consent and performing an act of gross indecency. The appeal was heard by Grant CJ, Brownhill J, and Hiley AJ. The dispute centred on whether the jury's verdicts were unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence presented at trial, and whether the Crown's address to the jury constituted an improper submission that led to a miscarriage of justice.

The legal issues before the court were whether the verdicts of guilt were unreasonable and not supported by the evidence, and whether the prosecutor's address to the jury regarding the defence's conduct was improper, thereby causing a miscarriage of justice. Specifically, the court had to consider the appellant's arguments regarding purported inconsistencies and discrepancies in the complainant's evidence, the impact of the appellant's alleged impotence, and the Crown's submission that the appellant's veracity had not been directly challenged in relation to certain acquitted counts.

The court reasoned that the inconsistencies and discrepancies identified by the appellant did not lead to a satisfaction that a rational jury ought to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to the appellant's guilt. The court noted that the complainant's evidence, while subject to cross-examination and the passage of time, was supported by compelling complaint and DNA evidence. Furthermore, the court found that the prosecutor's submission to the jury, which the appellant argued was improper, related to counts on which the appellant was acquitted and therefore could have no bearing on the jury's consideration of the counts for which he was convicted. The court also addressed the issue of corroboration, noting that under relevant legislation, corroboration is not a legal requirement for conviction in sexual offence cases, and that the DNA evidence, if accepted, operated in corroboration of the complainant's account. The court concluded that the jury was entitled to disregard alternative explanations for the presence of the complainant's DNA and that the evidence was sufficient to prove guilt if assessed as reliable by the jury.

The appeal was dismissed.