Ganiji v R

In the Supreme Court, Ganiji appealed his conviction for non-consensual sexual intercourse, while his acquittal for indecent assault stood unchallenged. The case involved allegations of sexual misconduct by the respondent against the complainant. Ganiji’s appeal centred on the contention that his conviction was unreasonable or not supported by the evidence, and that the trial judge’s directions to the jury were inadequate.

The central legal issues revolved around the adequacy of the jury’s consideration of the evidence and the appropriateness of the trial judge’s directions. The court needed to determine whether the conviction was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, and whether the trial judge’s directions on assessing the complainant’s credibility and considering the charges separately were sufficient.

The court examined the evidence, noting that the proof of the charge leading to conviction was significantly more substantial than that for the acquitted charge. It assessed whether the jury could have reasonably reached the verdict of guilt on the non-consensual sexual intercourse charge given the evidence. The court also scrutinised the trial judge’s directions to the jury, considering whether they were adequate for the jury to properly assess the case. Although the prosecution did not object to the directions at trial, the court examined whether they were in line with the principles set out in R v Markuleski. Ultimately, the court concluded that the jury’s verdict was not unreasonable, and the trial judge’s directions were sufficient.

Ganiji’s appeal was dismissed. The conviction for non-consensual sexual intercourse was upheld, and the acquittal for indecent assault remained unchallenged.