Mansaray v R

In the case of Mansaray v R, the appellant was convicted of engaging in sexual intercourse with a person under 16 years of age, knowing she was not consenting. The appellant, who was the victim's uncle, appealed against his conviction on the grounds that the verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence. The case involved cultural considerations and the interpretation of medical evidence, particularly the significance of an early complaint. The trial judge had expressed reservations about the verdict, which added to the complexity of the appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence. The appellant argued that his flight from the scene upon the arrival of the police was ambiguous and did not necessarily indicate guilt. Additionally, he claimed that the complainant had a motive to exaggerate or fabricate the accusations due to her dissatisfaction with living conditions. The court had to determine whether these arguments undermined the reliability of the complainant's testimony and the overall verdict.

The court found that the evidence of the appellant leaving the scene when the police arrived was not sufficient to establish guilt on its own. However, it could be considered as part of a broader context. The court rejected the appellant's claim of a fabricated motive, noting that the complainant's reluctance to make an early complaint and provide intimate details strongly indicated her reliability. The trial judge's reservations about the verdict did not suggest a miscarriage of justice, and the evidence presented to the jury was sufficient to support the verdict. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction.

No further orders were made beyond the dismissal of the appeal.