R v BCQ

In this appeal, the respondent sought to challenge the verdicts of guilty on certain counts of sexual offences, arguing that they were unreasonable and inconsistent with the verdicts of acquittal on other counts. The appellant, who was convicted of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with circumstances of aggravation, three counts of aggravated indecent assault, one count of aggravated indecent treatment of a child, and one count of rape, contended that the verdicts were unreasonable. The respondent argued that there was a logical and reasonable basis for the verdicts, particularly regarding the complainant’s evidence being less specific about the dates of certain offences.

The court was required to determine whether the verdicts of guilty were unreasonable and inconsistent with the verdicts of acquittal, particularly given the complainant’s evidence was not more specific about the dates of the offences in Counts 10, 11, and 13 than those in Counts 2-7. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the jury had been adequately directed in relation to the use of alleged admissions during a pretext call, and whether the jury needed further direction regarding the standard of proof when deciding whether the complainant’s evidence constituted an admission of sexual interference when the complainant was a child.

The court found that the jury had not been adequately directed in relation to the use of the contents of the pretext call, and that this misdirection was a significant factor in the verdicts being unreasonable. The court noted that the jury needed clear direction on the standard of proof when considering whether the complainant’s evidence constituted an admission of sexual interference when the complainant was a child, which was not provided. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions in respect of Counts 10, 11, and 13, and ordered new trials for Counts 1, 8, and 9.