R v Bond

The appellant in this case appeals his convictions on two counts of anal rape of an eight-year-old boy. The appellant was acquitted on a count of oral rape. The appellant was sentenced to eight years imprisonment for the counts of anal rape. The Court of Appeal was required to consider whether the jury’s verdicts of guilty were unreasonable or inconsistent. The Court of Appeal found the appellant’s convictions on Counts 1 and 2 to be legally inconsistent with the acquittal on Count 3. This inconsistency was due to either a compromise in the jury’s duty, confusion or misunderstanding of the jury’s function, or the legal difference between the offences.

The Court of Appeal found that the jury’s verdicts of guilty on Counts 1 and 2 were not unreasonable and could be supported by the evidence. The complainant’s evidence contained inconsistencies, but these were not of such magnitude as to cause a jury to doubt the reliability and credibility of the complainant’s accounts of each anal rape. However, the Court found the verdicts of guilty on Counts 2 and 3 to be inconsistent, as there was no logical or reasonable basis for the jury to have distinguished the complainant’s reliability and credibility in respect of these counts. The different verdicts on Counts 2 and 3 were an affront to logic and common sense. The Court concluded that any compromise, confusion, or misunderstanding could also have infected the jury’s deliberations on Count 1.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the verdicts of guilty on Counts 1 and 2, and ordered a re-trial in respect of Counts 1 and 2 on the indictment. The Court found the verdicts of guilty on Counts 1 and 2 to be legally inconsistent with the acquittal on Count 3, and that any compromise, confusion, or misunderstanding could also have infected the jury’s deliberations on Count 1. Therefore, the verdicts of guilty on Counts 1 and 2 should be set aside, and a re-trial ordered.