Munn v The Queen

In Munn v The Queen, the appellant was convicted by a jury of rape and sexual intercourse without consent. The jury returned their verdicts without the trial judge inquiring further into a juror's complaint that they had been told by another juror about an out-of-court act of the appellant. The appellant was also prevented from cross-examining the complainant on her sexual experience by the Crown Prosecutor's comments during closing submissions. The appellant also objected to the delay in reporting the out-of-court act, and argued that the delay was substantial, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The appellant appealed the convictions on several grounds, including the alleged bias of a juror, the irregularity of receiving the verdicts without further enquiry, and the unreasonableness of the convictions.

The legal issues the court had to decide were whether the juror was biased, whether it was irregular to receive the verdicts without further enquiry, whether the complainant's lack of sexual experience was relevant to the trial, whether the delay in reporting the out-of-court act was substantial, and whether the convictions were unreasonable and unable to be supported by the evidence. The court considered the appellant's arguments and examined the evidence and submissions of both parties. The court concluded that there was no bias on the part of the juror, and that the trial judge had appropriately dealt with the complaint. The court also held that it was not irregular to receive the verdicts without further enquiry, and that the complainant's lack of sexual experience was not relevant to the trial. The court found that the delay in reporting the out-of-court act was not substantial, and that there was no miscarriage of justice. The court also held that the convictions were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts, and that the trial judge had properly exercised his discretion in dealing with the juror's complaint. The court also held that the appellant's sexual experience was not relevant to the trial, and that the delay in reporting the out-of-court act did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The court concluded that the convictions were reasonable and supported by the evidence, and that there was no miscarriage of justice. The final orders were that the appeal be dismissed, and that the convictions be upheld.