R v Cordell

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, Cordell was convicted of one count of rape and one count of common assault at common law. The complainant, who was known to the defendant, alleged that Cordell had raped and assaulted her on multiple occasions over a period of time. Cordell appealed against his convictions on the basis that the verdicts were inconsistent and unsafe and unsatisfactory. The appeal centred on whether the offences were part of the same ‘transaction’ and whether the trial judge should have given a ‘Liberato’ direction to the jury.

The court was required to determine whether the verdicts were inconsistent, and if so, whether they were unsafe and unsatisfactory. The court considered whether the offences were part of the same ‘transaction’ and whether the trial judge should have given a ‘Liberato’ direction to the jury. The court also considered the relevant authorities on the issue, including S v R and Liberato v The Queen. The court held that the verdicts were not inconsistent as the complainant’s evidence of the multiple offences was imprecise, and the count particularised by reference to specific dates did not necessarily mean that it was the ‘first occasion’.

The court found that the verdicts were not inconsistent, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed. The court held that the trial judge did not need to give a ‘Liberato’ direction to the jury as the offences were not part of the same ‘transaction’. The court held that the verdicts were safe and satisfactory, and the appeal against conviction was dismissed.

The court made no orders as the appeal against conviction was dismissed.