R v Abdulla

The defence counsel argued that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and made an application for a stay of proceedings to be heard in the absence of the jury. This application was based on the possibility that the offence may have been committed before the defendant turned 18. The application was refused by the trial Judge. The jury were given written questions to consider, the first being whether they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that an act of sexual intercourse had taken place as alleged by the complainant. If they were satisfied of that fact, the jury were to consider whether they were satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the accused was over the age of 18 years at the time. The jury returned a guilty verdict. The defendant appealed against his conviction, contending that the trial Judge erred in seeking a special verdict and in the directions given to the jury. The appeal was dismissed.

The court considered the issues of the trial Judge's jurisdiction to hear the matter and whether the District Court had jurisdiction to enter a judgment. The court found that the trial Judge had jurisdiction to hear the matter and that the District Court had jurisdiction to enter a judgment. The court also found that the trial Judge's directions to the jury were appropriate and that the special verdict was appropriate in the circumstances. The court found that the prosecutor's comments on the complainant's evidence were appropriate and that the trial Judge had given adequate directions to the jury. The appeal was dismissed.