R v Ahmet

The applicant, Ahmet, was convicted by a jury on one count of unlawful imprisonment, one count of assault, one count of intentionally causing injury, and one count of rape. The applicant appealed against his conviction and sentence on multiple grounds. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge should have excluded the complainant’s evidence as being ‘contrived or induced’. The applicant argued that the trial judge should have considered the complainant's evidence as such based on a suggestive reply to a question. The court considered this in light of the decision in R v Freeman, where a similar issue arose. The court concluded that the evidence was not contrived or induced and upheld the conviction.

The applicant also argued that the trial judge should have sought submissions from counsel before instructing the jury on the possibility of a majority verdict. The applicant claimed this deprived him of his right to a unanimous verdict. The court examined the circumstances in which the trial judge instructed the jury and found no error. The court held that there was no procedural misstep that would necessitate the exclusion of the verdicts. The appeal against the conviction was therefore dismissed. Additionally, the Director of Public Prosecutions appealed the sentence, arguing it was manifestly inadequate. The court found no error in the judge's assessment and dismissed the appeal against the sentence.