R v Danine

In the matter of R v Danine, the appellant was convicted of raping a woman and was sentenced to imprisonment. The appellant appealed against his convictions on several grounds, one of which was that the trial judge erred by directing the jury that the medical evidence, admitted or not contested by the appellant, was capable of constituting corroboration of the complainant’s evidence. The appellant contended that the medical evidence was not capable of corroborating the complainant’s evidence as it did not provide independent evidence of the commission of the offence. The appellant further contended that the trial judge erred in his direction to the jury that evidence of the complainant’s sexual experience was admissible.

The court considered whether the trial judge erred by directing the jury that the medical evidence was capable of corroborating the complainant’s evidence. The court held that the trial judge did not err in directing the jury that the medical evidence was capable of corroborating the complainant’s evidence. The court held that the medical evidence was capable of corroborating the complainant’s evidence as it provided independent evidence of the commission of the offence. The court also considered whether the trial judge erred in his direction to the jury that evidence of the complainant’s sexual experience was admissible. The court held that the trial judge did not err in his direction to the jury that evidence of the complainant’s sexual experience was admissible as it was relevant to the complainant’s credibility.

The appeal against the convictions was dismissed. The court held that the trial judge did not err in directing the jury that the medical evidence was capable of corroborating the complainant’s evidence and that evidence of the complainant’s sexual experience was admissible. The court held that the appellant’s convictions were safe and the appeal against the convictions was dismissed.