McDonough v The Queen

The applicant, McDonough, was convicted by a jury in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of three counts of sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 16. He appealed his convictions, arguing that the verdicts were unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence, and that a miscarriage of justice occurred due to the trial judge's directions regarding evidence of a beaded curtain at his home.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the jury's verdicts were unreasonable, considering alleged inconsistencies, discrepancies, and inadequacies in the complainant's evidence. Secondly, whether the trial judge erred by permitting the prosecution to submit, and directing the jury to consider, that the applicant's evidence about a beaded curtain could demonstrate a consciousness of guilt.

Regarding the first ground of appeal, the court applied a two-stage process to assess the alleged deficiencies in the complainant's evidence. This involved identifying the asserted discrepancies and then determining whether, individually or collectively, they went to the essential features of the complainant's account and necessarily gave rise to a reasonable doubt, or if they were explicable in a manner that did not reflect on the complainant's credit. The court found that the purported inconsistencies and inadequacies raised by the applicant did not lead to a satisfaction that a rational jury ought to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to the applicant's guilt. The court concluded that it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the applicant's guilt, and therefore, the first ground of appeal was not made out.

Concerning the second ground of appeal, the court examined the applicant's evidence that he had installed a beaded curtain at his home on the advice of a real estate agent to improve its appearance for sale, and that it was not present during the alleged offending. The applicant's case was that the complainant's knowledge of the curtain stemmed from a later visit when the complainant was an adult and in a sexual relationship with the applicant. The court found that the discrepancies between the complainant's and the applicant's evidence regarding peripheral matters, such as the applicant favouring the complainant or lending him his car, were immaterial to the essential elements of the offences and did not necessarily give rise to doubt where the jury could reasonably have rejected the applicant as a credible witness. The court ultimately found that the jury's verdicts were open to them based on the evidence presented.