R v C, M

The appeal concerned the conviction of the appellant, R v C, M, for indecent assault. The complainant, AB, alleged that during an incident in an office, the appellant kissed her on the lips and then exposed his penis to her, asking her to touch it, which she did. The appellant's primary complaint was that the jury's verdict was unsafe, as it was possible they were only satisfied that a kiss had occurred, but not that the alleged exposure of his penis was proven beyond reasonable doubt. This, the appellant argued, meant the verdict might not reflect a finding beyond reasonable doubt that the kiss itself constituted an indecent assault with the requisite sexual connotation.

The legal issues before the court were whether the jury's verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory, and whether the trial judge had adequately directed the jury on the standard of proof in relation to the elements of the offence. Specifically, the court had to consider if the jury could have found the appellant guilty of indecent assault based solely on the kiss, without being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the accompanying act of exposing his penis, and whether such a finding would be legally sound.

The court reasoned that the complainant's evidence regarding the kiss was clear, but her recollection of the surrounding circumstances and the subsequent events was vague. She stated she was shy and embarrassed after the kiss, looking down, and then looked up to see the appellant's penis exposed. The appellant argued that if the jury was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the penis was exposed, they could not properly conclude that the kiss was an indecent assault, as the sexual connotation relied on the exposure. The court noted that the complainant was between 14 years and 7 months and 15 years and 1 month old at the time of the alleged offence. The court considered the possibility that the jury might have been satisfied of the kiss but not the exposure, and whether this would still support a conviction for indecent assault.

The court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and entered a verdict of acquittal. The court found that the jury's verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory, as it was not possible to be sure that the jury had found all the necessary elements of the offence proven beyond reasonable doubt, particularly the sexual intent or connotation of the kiss, which was closely linked to the alleged exposure of the appellant's penis.