R v Awang

The appeal against the conviction of Awang in the case of R v Awang was dismissed by the court. The appellant was found guilty of deprivation of liberty but was acquitted on the charges of assault with intent to commit rape and sexual assault. The complainant was extremely intoxicated at the time of the offence. Other witnesses provided evidence regarding the deprivation of liberty offence, but there was no evidence from other witnesses about the other offences charged. The trial judge directed the jury that they may wish to only act on the complainant’s evidence if it was supported. The appeal was based on the grounds of an unreasonable or insupportable verdict, and the fresh evidence that emerged after the conviction that the complainant had consulted solicitors regarding compensation.

The court considered whether the verdicts were inconsistent and whether the verdict on deprivation of liberty was unreasonable. The court held that the verdicts were not inconsistent and that the verdict on deprivation of liberty was reasonable. The court noted that the complainant’s evidence was the only evidence that directly related to the offences of assault with intent to commit rape and sexual assault, and that the jury was entitled to act on her evidence if they found it credible. The court also held that the fresh evidence about the complainant’s consultation with solicitors regarding compensation was not material or cogent enough to warrant a new trial. The court held that the appellant’s solicitors could not have become aware of this evidence before the verdict by exercising reasonable diligence, and that it was unlikely that the jury would have arrived at a different result if this evidence had been before it.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant were upheld. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for deprivation of liberty, and that the verdict on the other charges was not unreasonable or insupportable. The court also held that the fresh evidence about the complainant’s consultation with solicitors regarding compensation did not warrant a new trial. The orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and that the conviction and sentence of the appellant be upheld.