R v D, JJ

The case of R v D, JJ involved an appeal against conviction for sexual offences. The appellant, D, was convicted by a jury on two counts: indecent assault and unlawful sexual intercourse. The complainant, A, alleged that the appellant committed these offences during a New Year's Eve party in 1973 and approximately two weeks later. The appeal concerned the reasonableness and supportability of the jury's verdict in light of the evidence presented at trial.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the jury's verdict was unsafe or unsatisfactory, and whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was the perpetrator of the alleged offences. Specifically, the court had to consider the complainant's identification of the appellant, the appellant's own evidence and admissions, and the overall strength of the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution. The court also addressed an application to amend the grounds of appeal, which was refused.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that while the complainant had some difficulties with dates and her evidence was given many years after the events, her account of the sexual acts themselves was not inherently unreliable. The court found that the identification of the appellant as the perpetrator was established through a strong circumstantial case. This case relied on the complainant's description of the offender, which included physical attributes and specific circumstances of their meeting at the party and subsequent encounter. The court noted that the appellant admitted to attending the party and having interactions with the complainant around the relevant time, although he disputed the dates and the nature of the events. The court found that the cumulative effect of the evidence, including the appellant's inconsistent statements and the limited pool of individuals fitting the complainant's description, made it open for the jury to conclude that the appellant was the offender.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury's verdict was not unsafe or unsatisfactory. The court concluded that it was open to the jury to reject the appellant's denials and to convict him on both charges based on the evidence presented.