PB v The Queen

The appellant was convicted of two counts of sexual intercourse without consent and two counts of aggravated sexual assault in company, and was sentenced to imprisonment. The basis for the convictions was the evidence of the complainant, who was the appellant’s former partner. The complainant gave evidence of a number of sexual encounters with the appellant, but denied having consensual sex with him on the occasions that gave rise to the charges. The appellant did not give evidence. The jury was unable to reach verdicts on two counts of aggravated sexual assault in company, but convicted the appellant of the remaining counts. The appellant appealed against his convictions, arguing that the jury’s verdicts were unreasonable and that there was a significant possibility that an innocent person had been convicted. The appeal hinged on the probative value of the complainant’s prior inconsistent statements, and whether the verdicts were inconsistent with the jury’s failure to reach verdicts on some counts.

The court considered whether the jury’s verdicts were unreasonable, having regard to the entire case, including the probative value of the complainant’s prior inconsistent statements. The court noted that the complainant had been subjected to a rigorous and searching cross-examination, which was designed to expose her as a liar. The court also considered the complainant’s demeanour, which was described as calm, consistent and forthright. The court concluded that the jury’s verdicts were not unreasonable, and that the probative value of the complainant’s prior inconsistent statements did not undermine the safety of the convictions. The court further held that the failure of the jury to reach verdicts on some counts did not render the verdicts on other counts unreasonable.

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions. The jury’s verdicts were based on the evidence and the directions given by the trial judge. The complainant’s evidence, including her prior inconsistent statements, was probative and sufficient to support the verdicts. The court was satisfied that the jury had considered the evidence carefully and had reached a verdict on each count that it could reasonably do so. The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions and sentences were upheld.