R v Butler & Lawton & Marshall

The case of R v Butler & Lawton & Marshall involves appeals against convictions for two counts of rape and one count of attempted rape. The appellants, Butler, Lawton and Marshall, contested their convictions on various grounds, including the admission of evidence, jury directions and the potential impact of statements made by the Crown Prosecutor. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in admitting Butler's record of interview and whether the judge failed to properly direct the jury regarding the lies in the interview. Furthermore, the court needed to consider whether the discrepancies in the complainant's evidence were significant enough to render the verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory. The appellants also argued that the Crown Prosecutor's expressions may have distracted the jury from its task of assessing whether the evidence established their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal found that there were errors in the trial process that warranted intervention. With respect to Butler, the court held that the trial judge erred in admitting the record of interview and failed to adequately direct the jury with respect to the lies in the interview. Additionally, the court found that the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence were of such a nature as to compel a jury to reject the complainant's testimony. As for Lawton, the court found that the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury with respect to section 7(1)(c) of the Criminal Code and that the appellant's presence did not amount to aiding for the purposes of this section. The court also found that the Crown Prosecutor's expressions may have distracted the jury from its task of assessing whether the evidence established Lawton's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Finally, regarding Marshall, the court found that the Crown Prosecutor's expressions may have distracted the jury and that the verdicts were unreasonable having regard to the evidence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in CA No 34 of 2011 and set aside the convictions and verdicts. Verdicts of acquittal were entered on counts 1, 2 and 3. The appeals in CA No 35 of 2011 and CA No 37 of 2011 were dismissed, with the appeal against convictions being dismissed in both cases. The outcome of this case highlights the importance of proper jury directions and the potential impact of prosecutorial statements on the jury's decision-making process.