Oludare v The Queen

The appeal concerned a conviction for rape. The appellant, Oludare, was found guilty by a jury of one count of rape. He appealed this conviction to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the trial judge had misdirected the jury on the issue of consent and that the verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the complainant's consent were adequate and whether, in light of all the evidence, the jury's verdict of guilty was unsafe or unsatisfactory. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the jury was properly instructed on the elements of rape, including the requirement for the prosecution to prove the absence of consent beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether the evidence, when viewed in its entirety, could reasonably support the jury's finding of guilt.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The court found that the trial judge's directions, when read as a whole, adequately conveyed the legal principles relating to consent in sexual offences. The judge had instructed the jury that the prosecution bore the onus of proving that the complainant did not consent and that the appellant knew she did not consent or was reckless as to whether she consented. The court also considered the evidence presented, including the complainant's detailed account of the events, her repeated verbal protests, and her physical resistance. The court concluded that the jury was entitled to find the appellant guilty based on this evidence and that there was no substantial miscarriage of justice.