O'Sullivan v R; Flanders v R; Tohu v R and NRH v R

The appeals involved four appellants, each convicted of aggravated sexual intercourse without consent. The appeals were heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellants challenged the conviction on various grounds, including the credibility of fresh evidence, the adequacy of directions given about the use of admissions, and the directions regarding consent under section 61HA of the Crimes Act and at common law.

The primary legal issues included whether the fresh evidence was credible enough to warrant a new trial, whether the trial judge provided adequate directions about the use of admissions, and whether there was an error in the directions given about consent. Specifically, the appellants argued that the trial judge failed to distinguish between the statutory definition of consent under section 61HA and the common law definition, and that this error was compounded by the rejection of evidence concerning the complainant's sexual reputation. The appellants also contended that the verdicts were unreasonable or incapable of being supported by the evidence.

The court found that the fresh evidence did not meet the standard required to warrant a new trial, as it was not credible enough to cast significant doubt on the verdicts. Regarding the directions about admissions, the court held that while the directions were not perfect, they were sufficient for the jury to understand how to consider the admissions. The court also determined that there was no error in the directions about consent, as there was no need to distinguish between the statutory and common law definitions in this case. Furthermore, the rejection of evidence concerning the complainant's sexual reputation was held to be appropriate, as it did not pertain to the complainant's sexual disposition, which was relevant to the case. Finally, the court concluded that the verdicts were not unreasonable or incapable of being supported by the evidence.

The appeals were dismissed. The convictions of the appellants were upheld, and no new trials were ordered.